Pages:
Author

Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 75. (Read 2032266 times)

hero member
Activity: 644
Merit: 504
Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks
August 02, 2015, 07:16:18 PM
don't you find yourself lame as hell quoting someone who's also getting pounded with downvotes?  and of all ppl, Troll davout-bc himself?   you're hurting your own case  Cheesy

The only thing "lame as hell" is lending any credibility to reddit.

At this point I can only imagine you are trolling.

how do you measure consensus?

here  Cheesy :


legendary
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
August 02, 2015, 07:00:36 PM
don't you find yourself lame as hell quoting someone who's also getting pounded with downvotes?  and of all ppl, Troll davout-bc himself?   you're hurting your own case  Cheesy

The only thing "lame as hell" is lending any credibility to reddit.

At this point I can only imagine you are trolling.

how do you measure consensus?
hero member
Activity: 644
Merit: 504
Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks
August 02, 2015, 06:48:00 PM
don't you find yourself lame as hell quoting someone who's also getting pounded with downvotes?  and of all ppl, Troll davout-bc himself?   you're hurting your own case  Cheesy

The only thing "lame as hell" is lending any credibility to reddit.

At this point I can only imagine you are trolling.
legendary
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
August 02, 2015, 06:37:05 PM
Its actually kinda fun watching you get pounded with down votes over there. Keep up the good work. Kid.

Enjoy your fallacious appeals to popularity all you like.

No amount of "Likes" will reverse the simple truth:

Quote

LOL rekt

don't you find yourself lame as hell quoting someone who's also getting pounded with downvotes?  and of all ppl, Troll davout-bc himself?   you're hurting your own case  Cheesy


davout-bc -6 points 9 hours ago

Why do you want to increase at all?

And for your convenience, here is the previous argument in its quantitative version: "it's easy to build (1..N) good payment networks network on top of (1) good settlements network, the opposite isn't true".

In other words: "you can build a visa on top of sound money, you can't build sound money on top of visa"

legendary
Activity: 2156
Merit: 1072
Crypto is the separation of Power and State.
August 02, 2015, 06:30:57 PM
Its actually kinda fun watching you get pounded with down votes over there. Keep up the good work. Kid.

Enjoy your fallacious appeals to popularity all you like.

No amount of "Likes" will reverse the simple truth:

Quote

LOL rekt
legendary
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
August 02, 2015, 05:45:15 PM
interesting tactics employed by /u/mmeijeri et al in this thread:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3fhik9/mike_hearn_outlines_the_most_compelling_arguments/

initially, all his comments got downvoted (seen down lower the thread) as the pro increase concensus set in.  then, he takes the tactic of sub-commenting (spamming) the top comment to push all his downvoted comments downwards so as to discourage casual readers from making it all the way down to the bottom where the real content is.  couple that with some support that came in with upvoting him and he suddenly looks like he's carrying the day in terms of sentiment.

Desperate to keep up the appearance of this being a balanced debate, when in fact the opposite is true.

I'm sorry but you "community" retards and your hubris are really a sight to behold.

Of course Reddit is not home to a balanced debate, it is filled to the brim with ignorant partisanism, fear mongering and general disingenuous pitchfork branding.

If you are looking for "balanced debate" look no further than the next message on the mailing list linked in OP.

People willing to have reasonable discussions have long realized that reddit is just another shill populist playground. Stop confusing this echo chamber with anything resembling "consensus".

Its actually kinda fun watching you get pounded with down votes over there. Keep up the good work. Kid.
legendary
Activity: 1904
Merit: 1002
August 02, 2015, 04:08:04 PM
The nature of bitcoin is that if mining becomes too centralized and the miners decide on an unpopular fork, the users can just ignore them (well, we will need some miners, and in the worst case we might have to manually drop the difficulty to keep things running with less hashpower).

As long as the user base disagrees with the change, they don't have to follow along.  More users is more decentralized. The miners only have as much power as we grant them, and we can take it away if necessary.

The fact that you and a couple others try to smash this idea inside everyone's head does not make it more true. If you mean more nodes then granted but more users != more nodes.

This is the first time I've said it... how is that "smashing this idea inside everyone's head"?

Quote
When did miners decide on a fork anyway?

The fear of centralization is that miners will decide on a fork that goes against the principles of bitcoin.  Isn't that what your afraid of?

Quote
I don't see how your comments address any of mine and others' concerns. It seems you're basically saying "if Bitcoin becomes too centralized then we'll just switch to something else"... That's not a very productive argument...

A plurarlity of miners can decide on a fork, but if the users (individual and business) don't agree with the change, they can continue with the old rules.  This leaves the miners on an unused fork and they will quickly figure out that they are the ones who have switched to something else.

I'm saying "if bitcoin becomes too centralized when it comes to mining, the miners still have to answer to the user base."  Getting every bitcoin accepting business (or at the very least the exchanges and the payment processors) to accept your fork is a prerequisite of a successful fork.  These entities add to the decentralization of consensus.  Excluding them is illogical.
legendary
Activity: 2156
Merit: 1072
Crypto is the separation of Power and State.
August 02, 2015, 03:58:48 PM
How does scaling bitcoin separate the store of value bitcoin holds from it's function as a payment network? The two are inseparable and go hand in hand.

How can bitcoin retain it's function as a base store of value when it loses its active userbase to other block chains?

Did you miss the part where the distinction between a credit-based payment network (Visa/Paypal) vs a value-based settlement layer (Bitcoin/gold) was explained?  Go back and read it again.  Keep doing that until you understand.

Of course marginal users will be gradually pushed off BTC's MotherChain as their tiny crapflood/gambling tx fees fail to remain competitive.  But you are acting as if there is some binary function whereby 100% of BTC users will instantly move to LTC or Monero.  That's called a false dilemma and it's a stupid way to think.  Plus it ignores the high probability small tx will find space on sidechains and/or LN.

Get a clue.  Your whining about how every tx in the universe absolutely must be on MainChain or else Bitcoin Will Die, Because Evil Altcoins, is ridiculous.

Here's what you need to know:

Quote
http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-July/009728.html
Quote
On July 29, 2015 7:15:49 AM EDT, Mike Hearn via bitcoin-dev:
>Consider this:  the highest Bitcoin tx fees can possibly go is perhaps
>a
>little higher than what our competition charges. Too much higher than
>that,
>and people will just say, you know what .... I'll make a bank transfer.
>It's cheaper and not much slower, sometimes no slower at all.

I respectfully disagree with this analysis. The implication is that bitcoin is merely one of a number of payment technologies. It's much more than that. It's sound money, censorship resistance, personal control over money, programmable money, and more. Without these attributes it's merely a really inefficient way to do payments.

Given these advantages, there is no reason to believe the marginal cost of a transaction can't far surpass that of a PayPal or bank transfer. I personally would pay several multiples of the competitors' fees to continue using bitcoin.

Sure, some marginal use cases will drop off with greater fees, but that's normal and expected. These will be use cases where the user doesn't care about bitcoin's advantages. We must be willing to let these use cases go anyway, because we unfortunately don't have room on chain for everything anyone might want to do.

Therefore, bitcoin tx fees can go much higher than the competition.

Remember how Satoshi referenced the banking crisis in his early work? The 2008 banking crisis was about a lot of things, but high credit card and paypal fees wasnt one of them. There's more going on here than just payments. Any speculative economic analysis would do better to include this fact.
legendary
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
August 02, 2015, 03:56:00 PM
One great feature of bitcoin is that the payment network IS the settlement network.  To see this feature be deliberately broken is disheartening esp. Since the argument is so weak.  The author of that long post does not seem to understand this.

Centralization fears apply equally to LN. Worse, LN services are probably money transmitters from a legal perspective.

Nodes have no power.  We've already lost the centralization battle to the extent that mining pools are centralized. No govt is gping to pressure full nodes.  They will pressure miners.  So its ok to have full nodes in data centers.

precisely this.
legendary
Activity: 1246
Merit: 1010
August 02, 2015, 03:50:44 PM
One great feature of bitcoin is that the payment network IS the settlement network.  To see this feature be deliberately broken is disheartening esp. Since the argument is so weak.  The author of that long post does not seem to understand this.

Centralization fears apply equally to LN. Worse, LN services are probably money transmitters from a legal perspective.

Nodes have no power.  We've already lost the centralization battle to the extent that mining pools are centralized. No govt is gping to pressure full nodes.  They will pressure miners.  So its ok to have full nodes in data centers.
legendary
Activity: 2576
Merit: 1087
August 02, 2015, 03:37:16 PM
The nature of bitcoin is that if mining becomes too centralized and the miners decide on an unpopular fork, the users can just ignore them (well, we will need some miners, and in the worst case we might have to manually drop the difficulty to keep things running with less hashpower).

As long as the user base disagrees with the change, they don't have to follow along.  More users is more decentralized. The miners only have as much power as we grant them, and we can take it away if necessary.

...
When did miners decide on a fork anyway?
...


When the fork includes code that waits for a majority condition before triggering the production of blocks that the minority will reject as invalid.

Once the majority are running the new version and the condition is triggered then they will start mining those blocks, and the new blockchain becomes longer. Anyone that doesn't then get with the programme is effectively mining an alt coin.

Thats how miners decide. If they all stick with version N-1 blocks then version N blocks never happen.
sr. member
Activity: 338
Merit: 250
August 02, 2015, 02:32:39 PM
I think has BTC has greater return potential than gold. But, holding some physical gold/silver is always a good a idea.
hero member
Activity: 644
Merit: 504
Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks
August 02, 2015, 01:53:02 PM
The nature of bitcoin is that if mining becomes too centralized and the miners decide on an unpopular fork, the users can just ignore them (well, we will need some miners, and in the worst case we might have to manually drop the difficulty to keep things running with less hashpower).

As long as the user base disagrees with the change, they don't have to follow along.  More users is more decentralized. The miners only have as much power as we grant them, and we can take it away if necessary.

The fact that you and a couple others try to smash this idea inside everyone's head does not make it more true. If you mean more nodes then granted but more users != more nodes.

When did miners decide on a fork anyway?

I don't see how your comments address any of mine and others' concerns. It seems you're basically saying "if Bitcoin becomes too centralized then we'll just switch to something else"... That's not a very productive argument...
legendary
Activity: 1904
Merit: 1002
August 02, 2015, 01:46:56 PM
How does scaling bitcoin separate the store of value bitcoin holds from it's function as a payment network? The two are inseparable and go hand in hand.

How can bitcoin retain it's function as a base store of value when it loses its active userbase to other block chains?

Ps. Don't be rude

Disclaimer : raising the block size is not about scaling Bitcoin.

The idea is not to separate the two. The logic is you need a strong monetary base on top of which you can build any kind of desired payment network.

How can bitcoin retain it's function as a base store of value when it loses its decentralization?

Btw, can we stop lieing to people with this "active" userbase non-sense. We all know you and everyone here sit on our Bitcoin stash like dragons on their hoard. The use of Bitcoin as a "payment network" at this point is laughably marginal. And that's certainly not because of the block size limit.

The nature of bitcoin is that if mining becomes too centralized and the miners decide on an unpopular fork, the users can just ignore them (well, we will need some miners, and in the worst case we might have to manually drop the difficulty to keep things running with less hashpower).

As long as the user base disagrees with the change, they don't have to follow along.  More users is more decentralized.  The miners only have as much power as we grant them, and we can take it away if necessary.
hero member
Activity: 644
Merit: 504
Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks
August 02, 2015, 01:39:09 PM
This lad just scored a home run. Poor frap.doc, if you read this and don't realize you were led astray, away from your "sound money" theories by false gods of "more adoption", "cheap stuff for everyone"...

Quote
It is important to understand that units of a settlement network represent money, they are money. If settlement is achieved, then those uni to it because it is inherently more trustworthy as a settlement layer.

...snip...

Every effort should be being made into increasing this decentralization . . . instead we are doing just the opposite.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3fhik9/mike_hearn_outlines_the_most_compelling_arguments/

It's important to know why money becomes money in the first place, you can't put the settlement network idea befor the idea of a university accepted money and expect it to be adopted without mapping out the economic incentives that would facilitate it.

You need to read the post again because clearly there is something you didn't understand.



No, it's you who don't understand.

It's fair to claim that every single person in the world over the age of say 4 has heard of gold and knows is valuable. What do you think the comparable figures are  for Bitcoin? Probably 20% have heard of it if we're lucky and only maybe <0.01% who think it's valuable.

Good luck with forming a settlement layer on top of that.

A settlement layer will form because the largest layers of wealth and capital in our world are not deterred by financial restrictions but by regulatory friction. Our society will benefit much more by reducing the latter than by forcing a cheap payment network inside a rotten centralized system.


Quote from: brg444
A huge amounts of capital will move into the currency because it is the only one in the world with a mathematically enforced limited supply, uninterdictable transactions, and unfreezable assets. The unique immutable ledger in existence.

Bitcoin is best used to store value out of the hands of state governments policies, taxes and inflation. Are you suggesting there is no demand for this utility?
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3fhik9/mike_hearn_outlines_the_most_compelling_arguments/ctozsuy

Do you remember our little sidechain debate where you accused me of wanting to turn Bitcoin into a WoW marketplace? That's pretty much what you're trying to do here. Meanwhile I am supporting your previous stance of focusing Bitcoin to meet demand of the biggest value markets in the world: forex and commodities.
legendary
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
August 02, 2015, 01:03:02 PM
This lad just scored a home run. Poor frap.doc, if you read this and don't realize you were led astray, away from your "sound money" theories by false gods of "more adoption", "cheap stuff for everyone"...

Quote
It is important to understand that units of a settlement network represent money, they are money. If settlement is achieved, then those uni to it because it is inherently more trustworthy as a settlement layer.

...snip...

Every effort should be being made into increasing this decentralization . . . instead we are doing just the opposite.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3fhik9/mike_hearn_outlines_the_most_compelling_arguments/

It's important to know why money becomes money in the first place, you can't put the settlement network idea befor the idea of a university accepted money and expect it to be adopted without mapping out the economic incentives that would facilitate it.

You need to read the post again because clearly there is something you didn't understand.



No, it's you who don't understand.

It's fair to claim that every single person in the world over the age of say 4 has heard of gold and knows is valuable. What do you think the comparable figures are  for Bitcoin? Probably 20% have heard of it if we're lucky and only maybe <0.01% who think it's valuable.

Good luck with forming a settlement layer on top of that.
hero member
Activity: 644
Merit: 504
Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks
August 02, 2015, 12:44:22 PM
How does scaling bitcoin separate the store of value bitcoin holds from it's function as a payment network? The two are inseparable and go hand in hand.

How can bitcoin retain it's function as a base store of value when it loses its active userbase to other block chains?

Ps. Don't be rude

Disclaimer : raising the block size is not about scaling Bitcoin.

The idea is not to separate the two. The logic is you need a strong monetary base on top of which you can build any kind of desired payment network.

How can bitcoin retain it's function as a base store of value when it loses its decentralization?

Btw, can we stop lieing to people with this "active" userbase non-sense. We all know you and everyone here sit on our Bitcoin stash like dragons on their hoard. The use of Bitcoin as a "payment network" at this point is laughably marginal. And that's certainly not because of the block size limit.
hero member
Activity: 644
Merit: 504
Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks
August 02, 2015, 12:40:08 PM
This lad just scored a home run. Poor frap.doc, if you read this and don't realize you were led astray, away from your "sound money" theories by false gods of "more adoption", "cheap stuff for everyone"...

Quote
It is important to understand that units of a settlement network represent money, they are money. If settlement is achieved, then those uni to it because it is inherently more trustworthy as a settlement layer.

...snip...

Every effort should be being made into increasing this decentralization . . . instead we are doing just the opposite.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3fhik9/mike_hearn_outlines_the_most_compelling_arguments/

It's important to know why money becomes money in the first place, you can't put the settlement network idea befor the idea of a university accepted money and expect it to be adopted without mapping out the economic incentives that would facilitate it.

You need to read the post again because clearly there is something you didn't understand.

legendary
Activity: 1372
Merit: 1000
August 02, 2015, 12:33:00 PM
This lad just scored a home run. Poor frap.doc, if you read this and don't realize you were led astray, away from your "sound money" theories by false gods of "more adoption", "cheap stuff for everyone"...

Quote
It is important to understand that units of a settlement network represent money, they are money. If settlement is achieved, then those uni to it because it is inherently more trustworthy as a settlement layer.

...snip...

Every effort should be being made into increasing this decentralization . . . instead we are doing just the opposite.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3fhik9/mike_hearn_outlines_the_most_compelling_arguments/

It's important to know why money becomes money in the first place, you can't put the settlement network idea befor the idea of a university accepted money and expect it to be adopted without mapping out the economic incentives that would facilitate it.
legendary
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
August 02, 2015, 12:26:09 PM
Arthur Levitt on the optimistic view and Bitcoin starting at 51 min:

http://www.bloomberg.com/podcasts/masters-in-business/
Pages:
Jump to: