Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 80. (Read 2032247 times)
http://fortune.com/2015/07/31/swiss-central-bank-losses/ - Crappy article, but the last paragraph is hilarious.
i keep asking the Cripplecoiners a simple theoretical question which i never get an answer for: if everyone in the world used Bitcoin, wouldn't that be a more effective and more secure form of decentralization for Bitcoin's future?
No.
Everyone (more or less) in the world already uses fiat currencies. If Bitcoin isn't decentralized it is pointless.
surely Bitcoin could displace fiat. it might not have to to become highly successful. nor might it even be desired. but surely it could.
if every person in the world used Bitcoin, that would be the ultimate in decentralization. surely not ubiquitous full node implementation.
You don't get it. If Bitcoin becomes something not decentralized, even if everyone uses it, all you have done is create a global centrally-controlled (or controllable) like a fiat currency. Okay, I misspoke when said that would be pointless, it could be an interesting experiment broadly akin to the Euro (different in particulars of course), but certainly not what satoshi had in mind.
let's try to draw the boundaries of this argument first.
which would be more valuable of a system? one, where we had everyone in the world able to run a full node with 100,000 users. or one with everyone in the world as a Bitcoin user with 100,000 full nodes?
It depends. Are all of those nodes in a basement in Ft Meade? More generally, who controls them and controls access to them? How hard, expensive and potentially inaccessible is it to run a node if you want to?
There are several million (over 100 million?) credit card payment terminals, something you might call "nodes" in that system. Yet it is nothing at all like what Bitcoin is supposed to be, largely because regardless of the number of nodes, all of those nodes are controlled by the banks.
Also, where is the mining in this model? Both mining and nodes matter. They're related of course, because you can't mine without a node.
you're straying away from the thrust of my argument. which was: given what we know today about the incentive structures and underpinnings about why users adopt Bitcoin and who run full nodes these days, which of the above scenarios that i defined would be more valuable?
the answer should be obvious. the one where everyone in the world used Bitcoin for transacting while backed by a system of 100,000 full nodes.
Again, I don't necessarily agree. It depends who is running those nodes, what the requirements are, and how those requirements impose control. Nearly everyone can run a credit card terminal, and there are an enormous number of such terminals, but there are strict requirements that give all of the actual control to the banks.
Quote
given that we had that many full nodes, clearly it would be b/c the system was decentralized w/o a main control center
Now you are the one straying from the argument, adding conditions to why and how those nodes are being run. It isn't necessarily true that the only reason for 100K nodes is for decentralization. That's one plausible reason certainly.
As you obviously see that makes a big difference or you wouldn't have added it.
well yeah. given that it was my theoretical argument, yes, i get to define the conditions. but those aren't unreasonable conditions i've defined. all i'm assuming is that the motivations behind user growth and running full nodes don't change from what they are today: users use Bitcoin b/c it's cheap, apolitical, a SOV, and relatively easy to use and access; full nodes are run by volunteer enthusiasts, merchants, tech oriented ppl & early adopters. all i'm doing is extrapolating those conditions forward towards a world where 100,000 full nodes and every person in the world using Bitcoin would clearly be a way more valuable and secure decentralized system than the reverse.
Can you provide technical arguments for your proposition that "volunteer enthusiasts, merchants, tech oriented ppl & early adopters" could manage to run a full node when "everyone and their coffee cup on the planet" is on Bitcoin?
if everyone on the planet were using Bitcoin, it's not hard to imagine that most merchants would be running their own full nodes for security and fiduciary responsibility reasons. also, gvts and banks would probably being doing it too and that wouldn't be a bad thing given that there would be 100,000 worldwide run by a diversity of gvts, banks, and everyone else. taking it down to the individual, maybe it won't be practical but maybe it will assuming the price of Bitcoin increases proportionately making the cost of such a thing similar to what it is today in USD. and then there is always pruning. i'm not worried about enough decentralized full nodes at all.
give me a break with your "pruning". pruning doesn't have anything to do with Bitcoin
Quote
most merchants would be running their own full nodes for security and fiduciary responsibility reasons. also, gvts and banks would probably being doing it too and that wouldn't be a bad thing given that there would be 100,000 worldwide run by a diversity of gvts, banks, and everyone else.
oh well all fine and dandy then!
please note that most merchants are individuals also and given that most (all?) merchants using Bitcoin at the moment do not run their own nodes I'm not sure how you could extrapolate they will when it becomes much more expensive in the future.
Quote
gvts, banks, and everyone else.
if everyone on the planet were using Bitcoin, it's not hard to imagine that most merchants would be running their own full nodes for security and fiduciary responsibility reasons.
It's a fair question whether "most merchants" could afford to (or would) run such a node, the way they currently use credit card terminals. Credit card terminals come with many conditions and significant cost, but they at least don't require a lot of IT infrastructure (at the low end).
i keep asking the Cripplecoiners a simple theoretical question which i never get an answer for: if everyone in the world used Bitcoin, wouldn't that be a more effective and more secure form of decentralization for Bitcoin's future?
No.
Everyone (more or less) in the world already uses fiat currencies. If Bitcoin isn't decentralized it is pointless.
surely Bitcoin could displace fiat. it might not have to to become highly successful. nor might it even be desired. but surely it could.
if every person in the world used Bitcoin, that would be the ultimate in decentralization. surely not ubiquitous full node implementation.
You don't get it. If Bitcoin becomes something not decentralized, even if everyone uses it, all you have done is create a global centrally-controlled (or controllable) like a fiat currency. Okay, I misspoke when said that would be pointless, it could be an interesting experiment broadly akin to the Euro (different in particulars of course), but certainly not what satoshi had in mind.
let's try to draw the boundaries of this argument first.
which would be more valuable of a system? one, where we had everyone in the world able to run a full node with 100,000 users. or one with everyone in the world as a Bitcoin user with 100,000 full nodes?
It depends. Are all of those nodes in a basement in Ft Meade? More generally, who controls them and controls access to them? How hard, expensive and potentially inaccessible is it to run a node if you want to?
There are several million (over 100 million?) credit card payment terminals, something you might call "nodes" in that system. Yet it is nothing at all like what Bitcoin is supposed to be, largely because regardless of the number of nodes, all of those nodes are controlled by the banks.
Also, where is the mining in this model? Both mining and nodes matter. They're related of course, because you can't mine without a node.
you're straying away from the thrust of my argument. which was: given what we know today about the incentive structures and underpinnings about why users adopt Bitcoin and who run full nodes these days, which of the above scenarios that i defined would be more valuable?
the answer should be obvious. the one where everyone in the world used Bitcoin for transacting while backed by a system of 100,000 full nodes.
Again, I don't necessarily agree. It depends who is running those nodes, what the requirements are, and how those requirements impose control. Nearly everyone can run a credit card terminal, and there are an enormous number of such terminals, but there are strict requirements that give all of the actual control to the banks.
Quote
given that we had that many full nodes, clearly it would be b/c the system was decentralized w/o a main control center
Now you are the one straying from the argument, adding conditions to why and how those nodes are being run. It isn't necessarily true that the only reason for 100K nodes is for decentralization. That's one plausible reason certainly.
As you obviously see that makes a big difference or you wouldn't have added it.
well yeah. given that it was my theoretical argument, yes, i get to define the conditions. but those aren't unreasonable conditions i've defined. all i'm assuming is that the motivations behind user growth and running full nodes don't change from what they are today: users use Bitcoin b/c it's cheap, apolitical, a SOV, and relatively easy to use and access; full nodes are run by volunteer enthusiasts, merchants, tech oriented ppl & early adopters. all i'm doing is extrapolating those conditions forward towards a world where 100,000 full nodes and every person in the world using Bitcoin would clearly be a way more valuable and secure decentralized system than the reverse.
Can you provide technical arguments for your proposition that "volunteer enthusiasts, merchants, tech oriented ppl & early adopters" could manage to run a full node when "everyone and their coffee cup on the planet" is on Bitcoin?
if everyone on the planet were using Bitcoin, it's not hard to imagine that most merchants would be running their own full nodes for security and fiduciary responsibility reasons. also, gvts and banks would probably being doing it too and that wouldn't be a bad thing given that there would be 100,000 worldwide run by a diversity of gvts, banks, and everyone else. taking it down to the individual, maybe it won't be practical but maybe it will assuming the price of Bitcoin increases proportionately making the cost of such a thing similar to what it is today in USD. and then there is always pruning. i'm not worried about enough decentralized full nodes at all.
i keep asking the Cripplecoiners a simple theoretical question which i never get an answer for: if everyone in the world used Bitcoin, wouldn't that be a more effective and more secure form of decentralization for Bitcoin's future?
No.
Everyone (more or less) in the world already uses fiat currencies. If Bitcoin isn't decentralized it is pointless.
surely Bitcoin could displace fiat. it might not have to to become highly successful. nor might it even be desired. but surely it could.
if every person in the world used Bitcoin, that would be the ultimate in decentralization. surely not ubiquitous full node implementation.
You don't get it. If Bitcoin becomes something not decentralized, even if everyone uses it, all you have done is create a global centrally-controlled (or controllable) like a fiat currency. Okay, I misspoke when said that would be pointless, it could be an interesting experiment broadly akin to the Euro (different in particulars of course), but certainly not what satoshi had in mind.
let's try to draw the boundaries of this argument first.
which would be more valuable of a system? one, where we had everyone in the world able to run a full node with 100,000 users. or one with everyone in the world as a Bitcoin user with 100,000 full nodes?
It depends. Are all of those nodes in a basement in Ft Meade? More generally, who controls them and controls access to them? How hard, expensive and potentially inaccessible is it to run a node if you want to?
There are several million (over 100 million?) credit card payment terminals, something you might call "nodes" in that system. Yet it is nothing at all like what Bitcoin is supposed to be, largely because regardless of the number of nodes, all of those nodes are controlled by the banks.
Also, where is the mining in this model? Both mining and nodes matter. They're related of course, because you can't mine without a node.
you're straying away from the thrust of my argument. which was: given what we know today about the incentive structures and underpinnings about why users adopt Bitcoin and who run full nodes these days, which of the above scenarios that i defined would be more valuable?
the answer should be obvious. the one where everyone in the world used Bitcoin for transacting while backed by a system of 100,000 full nodes.
Again, I don't necessarily agree. It depends who is running those nodes, what the requirements are, and how those requirements impose control. Nearly everyone can run a credit card terminal, and there are an enormous number of such terminals, but there are strict requirements that give all of the actual control to the banks.
Quote
given that we had that many full nodes, clearly it would be b/c the system was decentralized w/o a main control center
Now you are the one straying from the argument, adding conditions to why and how those nodes are being run. It isn't necessarily true that the only reason for 100K nodes is for decentralization. That's one plausible reason certainly.
As you obviously see that makes a big difference or you wouldn't have added it.
well yeah. given that it was my theoretical argument, yes, i get to define the conditions. but those aren't unreasonable conditions i've defined. all i'm assuming is that the motivations behind user growth and running full nodes don't change from what they are today: users use Bitcoin b/c it's cheap, apolitical, a SOV, and relatively easy to use and access; full nodes are run by volunteer enthusiasts, merchants, tech oriented ppl & early adopters. all i'm doing is extrapolating those conditions forward towards a world where 100,000 full nodes and every person in the world using Bitcoin would clearly be a way more valuable and secure decentralized system than the reverse.
Can you provide technical arguments for your proposition that "volunteer enthusiasts, merchants, tech oriented ppl & early adopters" could manage to run a full node when "everyone and their coffee cup on the planet" is on Bitcoin?
i keep asking the Cripplecoiners a simple theoretical question which i never get an answer for: if everyone in the world used Bitcoin, wouldn't that be a more effective and more secure form of decentralization for Bitcoin's future?
No.
Everyone (more or less) in the world already uses fiat currencies. If Bitcoin isn't decentralized it is pointless.
surely Bitcoin could displace fiat. it might not have to to become highly successful. nor might it even be desired. but surely it could.
if every person in the world used Bitcoin, that would be the ultimate in decentralization. surely not ubiquitous full node implementation.
You don't get it. If Bitcoin becomes something not decentralized, even if everyone uses it, all you have done is create a global centrally-controlled (or controllable) like a fiat currency. Okay, I misspoke when said that would be pointless, it could be an interesting experiment broadly akin to the Euro (different in particulars of course), but certainly not what satoshi had in mind.
let's try to draw the boundaries of this argument first.
which would be more valuable of a system? one, where we had everyone in the world able to run a full node with 100,000 users. or one with everyone in the world as a Bitcoin user with 100,000 full nodes?
It depends. Are all of those nodes in a basement in Ft Meade? More generally, who controls them and controls access to them? How hard, expensive and potentially inaccessible is it to run a node if you want to?
There are several million (over 100 million?) credit card payment terminals, something you might call "nodes" in that system. Yet it is nothing at all like what Bitcoin is supposed to be, largely because regardless of the number of nodes, all of those nodes are controlled by the banks.
Also, where is the mining in this model? Both mining and nodes matter. They're related of course, because you can't mine without a node.
you're straying away from the thrust of my argument. which was: given what we know today about the incentive structures and underpinnings about why users adopt Bitcoin and who run full nodes these days, which of the above scenarios that i defined would be more valuable?
the answer should be obvious. the one where everyone in the world used Bitcoin for transacting while backed by a system of 100,000 full nodes.
Again, I don't necessarily agree. It depends who is running those nodes, what the requirements are, and how those requirements impose control. Nearly everyone can run a credit card terminal, and there are an enormous number of such terminals, but there are strict requirements that give all of the actual control to the banks.
Quote
given that we had that many full nodes, clearly it would be b/c the system was decentralized w/o a main control center
Now you are the one straying from the argument, adding conditions to why and how those nodes are being run. It isn't necessarily true that the only reason for 100K nodes is for decentralization. That's one plausible reason certainly.
As you obviously see that makes a big difference or you wouldn't have added it.
well yeah. given that it was my theoretical argument, yes, i get to define the conditions. but those aren't unreasonable conditions i've defined. all i'm assuming is that the motivations behind user growth and running full nodes don't change from what they are today: users use Bitcoin b/c it's cheap, apolitical, a SOV, and relatively easy to use and access; full nodes are run by volunteer enthusiasts, merchants, tech oriented ppl & early adopters. all i'm doing is extrapolating those conditions forward towards a world where 100,000 full nodes and every person in the world using Bitcoin would clearly be a way more valuable and secure decentralized system than the reverse.
i keep asking the Cripplecoiners a simple theoretical question which i never get an answer for: if everyone in the world used Bitcoin, wouldn't that be a more effective and more secure form of decentralization for Bitcoin's future?
No.
Everyone (more or less) in the world already uses fiat currencies. If Bitcoin isn't decentralized it is pointless.
surely Bitcoin could displace fiat. it might not have to to become highly successful. nor might it even be desired. but surely it could.
if every person in the world used Bitcoin, that would be the ultimate in decentralization. surely not ubiquitous full node implementation.
You don't get it. If Bitcoin becomes something not decentralized, even if everyone uses it, all you have done is create a global centrally-controlled (or controllable) like a fiat currency. Okay, I misspoke when said that would be pointless, it could be an interesting experiment broadly akin to the Euro (different in particulars of course), but certainly not what satoshi had in mind.
let's try to draw the boundaries of this argument first.
which would be more valuable of a system? one, where we had everyone in the world able to run a full node with 100,000 users. or one with everyone in the world as a Bitcoin user with 100,000 full nodes?
It depends. Are all of those nodes in a basement in Ft Meade? More generally, who controls them and controls access to them? How hard, expensive and potentially inaccessible is it to run a node if you want to?
There are several million (over 100 million?) credit card payment terminals, something you might call "nodes" in that system. Yet it is nothing at all like what Bitcoin is supposed to be, largely because regardless of the number of nodes, all of those nodes are controlled by the banks.
Also, where is the mining in this model? Both mining and nodes matter. They're related of course, because you can't mine without a node.
you're straying away from the thrust of my argument. which was: given what we know today about the incentive structures and underpinnings about why users adopt Bitcoin and who run full nodes these days, which of the above scenarios that i defined would be more valuable?
the answer should be obvious. the one where everyone in the world used Bitcoin for transacting while backed by a system of 100,000 full nodes.
Again, I don't necessarily agree. It depends who is running those nodes, what the requirements are, and how those requirements impose control. Nearly everyone can run a credit card terminal, and there are an enormous number of such terminals, but there are strict requirements that give all of the actual control to the banks.
Quote
given that we had that many full nodes, clearly it would be b/c the system was decentralized w/o a main control center
Now you are the one straying from the argument, adding conditions to why and how those nodes are being run. It isn't necessarily true that the only reason for 100K nodes is for decentralization. That's one plausible reason certainly.
As you obviously see that makes a big difference or you wouldn't have added it.
growth? what growth? they're still lying to you:
i keep asking the Cripplecoiners a simple theoretical question which i never get an answer for: if everyone in the world used Bitcoin, wouldn't that be a more effective and more secure form of decentralization for Bitcoin's future?
No.
Everyone (more or less) in the world already uses fiat currencies. If Bitcoin isn't decentralized it is pointless.
surely Bitcoin could displace fiat. it might not have to to become highly successful. nor might it even be desired. but surely it could.
if every person in the world used Bitcoin, that would be the ultimate in decentralization. surely not ubiquitous full node implementation.
You don't get it. If Bitcoin becomes something not decentralized, even if everyone uses it, all you have done is create a global centrally-controlled (or controllable) like a fiat currency. Okay, I misspoke when said that would be pointless, it could be an interesting experiment broadly akin to the Euro (different in particulars of course), but certainly not what satoshi had in mind.
let's try to draw the boundaries of this argument first.
which would be more valuable of a system? one, where we had everyone in the world able to run a full node with 100,000 users. or one with everyone in the world as a Bitcoin user with 100,000 full nodes?
It depends. Are all of those nodes in a basement in Ft Meade? More generally, who controls them and controls access to them? How hard, expensive and potentially inaccessible is it to run a node if you want to?
There are several million (over 100 million?) credit card payment terminals, something you might call "nodes" in that system. Yet it is nothing at all like what Bitcoin is supposed to be, largely because regardless of the number of nodes, all of those nodes are controlled by the banks.
Also, where is the mining in this model? Both mining and nodes matter. They're related of course, because you can't mine without a node.
you're straying away from the thrust of my argument. which was: given what we know today about the incentive structures and underpinnings about why users adopt Bitcoin and who run full nodes these days, which of the above scenarios that i defined would be more valuable?
the answer should be obvious. the one where everyone in the world used Bitcoin for transacting while backed by a system of 100,000 full nodes.
given that we had that many full nodes, clearly it would be b/c the system was decentralized w/o a main control center; otherwise we wouldn't have or need that many full nodes. we'd just need one. the scenario you're drawing, in contrast, is just a variation on TPTB's one world gubmint doom_to_us_all. i don't buy that. Bitcoin has much more potential to change the system as we know it and that's where i think it's headed.
i keep asking the Cripplecoiners a simple theoretical question which i never get an answer for: if everyone in the world used Bitcoin, wouldn't that be a more effective and more secure form of decentralization for Bitcoin's future?
No.
Everyone (more or less) in the world already uses fiat currencies. If Bitcoin isn't decentralized it is pointless.
surely Bitcoin could displace fiat. it might not have to to become highly successful. nor might it even be desired. but surely it could.
if every person in the world used Bitcoin, that would be the ultimate in decentralization. surely not ubiquitous full node implementation.
You don't get it. If Bitcoin becomes something not decentralized, even if everyone uses it, all you have done is create a global centrally-controlled (or controllable) like a fiat currency. Okay, I misspoke when said that would be pointless, it could be an interesting experiment broadly akin to the Euro (different in particulars of course), but certainly not what satoshi had in mind.
let's try to draw the boundaries of this argument first.
which would be more valuable of a system? one, where we had everyone in the world able to run a full node with 100,000 users. or one with everyone in the world as a Bitcoin user with 100,000 full nodes?
It depends. Are all of those nodes in a basement in Ft Meade? More generally, who controls them and controls access to them? How hard, expensive and potentially inaccessible is it to run a node if you want to?
There are several million (over 100 million?) credit card payment terminals, something you might call "nodes" in that system. Yet it is nothing at all like what Bitcoin is supposed to be, largely because regardless of the number of nodes, all of those nodes are controlled by the banks.
Also, where is the mining in this model? Both mining and nodes matter. They're related of course, because you can't mine without a node.
i keep asking the Cripplecoiners a simple theoretical question which i never get an answer for: if everyone in the world used Bitcoin, wouldn't that be a more effective and more secure form of decentralization for Bitcoin's future?
No.
Everyone (more or less) in the world already uses fiat currencies. If Bitcoin isn't decentralized it is pointless.
surely Bitcoin could displace fiat. it might not have to to become highly successful. nor might it even be desired. but surely it could.
if every person in the world used Bitcoin, that would be the ultimate in decentralization. surely not ubiquitous full node implementation.
You don't get it. If Bitcoin becomes something not decentralized, even if everyone uses it, all you have done is create a global centrally-controlled (or controllable) like a fiat currency. Okay, I misspoke when said that would be pointless, it could be an interesting experiment broadly akin to the Euro (different in particulars of course), but certainly not what satoshi had in mind.
let's try to draw the boundaries of this argument first.
which would be more valuable of a system? one, where we had everyone in the world able to run a full node with 100,000 users. or one with everyone in the world as a Bitcoin user with 100,000 full nodes?
i keep asking the Cripplecoiners a simple theoretical question which i never get an answer for: if everyone in the world used Bitcoin, wouldn't that be a more effective and more secure form of decentralization for Bitcoin's future?
No.
Everyone (more or less) in the world already uses fiat currencies. If Bitcoin isn't decentralized it is pointless.
surely Bitcoin could displace fiat. it might not have to to become highly successful. nor might it even be desired. but surely it could.
if every person in the world used Bitcoin, that would be the ultimate in decentralization. surely not ubiquitous full node implementation.
You don't get it. If Bitcoin becomes something not decentralized, even if everyone uses it, all you have done is create something that might be globally-used but is centrally-controlled (or controllable) like a fiat currency. Okay, I misspoke when said that would be pointless, it could be an interesting experiment broadly akin to the Euro (different in particulars of course), but certainly not what satoshi had in mind.
i keep asking the Cripplecoiners a simple theoretical question which i never get an answer for: if everyone in the world used Bitcoin, wouldn't that be a more effective and more secure form of decentralization for Bitcoin's future?
No.
Everyone (more or less) in the world already uses fiat currencies. If Bitcoin isn't decentralized it is pointless.
surely Bitcoin could displace fiat. it might not have to to become highly successful. nor might it even be desired. but surely it could.
if every person in the world used Bitcoin, that would be the ultimate in decentralization. surely not ubiquitous full node implementation.
i keep asking the Cripplecoiners a simple theoretical question which i never get an answer for: if everyone in the world used Bitcoin, wouldn't that be a more effective and more secure form of decentralization for Bitcoin's future?
No.
Everyone (more or less) in the world already uses fiat currencies. If Bitcoin isn't decentralized it is pointless.
That’s why the blocksize topic, which I discussed with Chris [Dixon, on the a16z Podcast] can lead to such vitriolic debates. Forks are not the best way to resolve these disputes, but it may happen anyway because some of the people who have become involved in the years since Satoshi left feel like the decentralization aspect of bitcoin is the end and not a means to an end. Saying “You should use bitcoin because it’s decentralized,” is like saying, “You should use Linux because it’s open source.” That doesn’t mean anything to people. They care about what they can use it for, what can they do with it.
so a great example of this which i've talked about before is core dev's insistence on having anyone with a raspi or a DSL modem being able to run a full node as an ultimate goal for Bitcoin. as if that somehow is the most important definition of decentralization. that's ridiculous. just the sheer difficulty alone of running a full node makes that impossible. most current Bitcoiner's don't even care to run a full node. yet that keeps getting held up as a reason against bigger blocks.
i keep asking the Cripplecoiners a simple theoretical question which i never get an answer for: if everyone in the world used Bitcoin, wouldn't that be a more effective and more secure form of decentralization for Bitcoin's future? since using Bitcoin is much simpler and affordable than running a full node, shouldn't that be more of a focus for Bitcoin? it's unrealistic to expect thousands of full nodes to pop around Africa even tho we know fiberoptic cable and smartphones are flooding the region as we speak. but it is not unrealistic to expect millions of those ppl to be able to use those smartphones to transact in Bitcoin. so why aren't we prioritizing that vision? esp since hostile western gvts would find it next to impossible to reach into the depths of Africa and many areas similar to stop individual usage. and esp since these are the types of ppl who need and who would want to use Bitcoin the most.
cryptocurrency excluding Ripple
...
There is a very slight trend down (black)
...
There is a very slight trend down (black)
Some part of that recent trend is likely that you didn't exclude other Ripple-like assets with economically-misleading market caps such as Stellar.
Fully parsed, what you are claiming is
Quote
The simple solution is to remove the artificial cap hard fork Bitcoin.
Do you realize how naive that makes you look?If you truly understood your own position then you would argue it instead of just railing at people who might have an opposing view. Call me some more names, it's really helping the credibility of your argument.
What *is* bloat? (apart from the intentional choice of hyperbolic word). Can you put a value on what is considered bloated? Can you confidently say that your idea of what constitute bloat is some world wide standard?
You put words in my mouth, then claim those invented words make me look stupid. In fact this only serves to make you look even more desperate. if I didn't understand the maxim, I would not be able to point out just how incoherent your thought process must be if you are attempting to equate feature-set with size-of-data. I understand the difference between feature-set and data-size, do you? I'll bet you do. So, don't even for one second pretend you think that systems with more data are inherently more complex than systems with less data.
Do you truly believe they are the same thing or are you again being disingenuous in order to try and maintain your tenuous argument that effectively 'changing a config setting' is somehow more complicated than developing a whole new platform and all the interfaces necessary to communicate.
Its about as elegant as your debating skill....
Fully parsed your argument against Gavin's fix for CVE-2013-2292 seems to be, don't do it because it increases complexity. Again disingenuous or actually not very smart?
Then finally you try to create further confusion between the feature-set of software vs its deployment. To be clear, what is being kept simple is the software. I'm interested to know though just exactly what it is that is complex about the hard fork. I can think of other words that might apply - contentious, unpredictable even undesirable - depending on your viewpoint - but not complex. You put the new release up, and those that want it deploy it. Those that don't do not.
Interestingly those words that apply to the hard fork, could quite easily be used to describe intentionally restricting transaction growth by refusing to update the max block size. So in that respect both 'solutions' are equal.
In another very important respect, they are not equal. Releasing a version of bitcoin core with an increased block size allows for true consensus from the user base. Refusing to do so, is enforcing the view of some core-devs. That's what is despicable.
Thankfully in time, once the details have been ironed out and devs eventually accept some form of block size increase schedule (and they will, however much you cling to your delusion) the hard fork can happen in core, and then the miners can have the final say in what goes forward. If everyone sticks on 1MB coin then you get your wish! I'll send you a cookie, iced with the words "Well done you!".
I think though, that is what you are terrified of. That you know there is actually no way in hell the block size will stay at 1MB, but you are so married to your position that you can't let go and will say anything to defend it. It comes across in your posts.
"Truly understood?" The True Scotsman called and asks you return his kilt ASAP.
Fret and mewl more about being called mean names, your endless concern-meta scoldings and finger-wagging process objections (we already know you are afraid to "fight features") are really helping the credibility of your argument.
The only way to remove the 1MB cap is via a hard fork. Thus my parsing of your absurd assertion regarding "The Simple SolutionTM" is logically correct.
To quote Hearn, "don't pretend any of this stuff is obvious."
You asked "what is bloat?" Bloat is Gavincoin, with its undesirable sacrifice of security for (the feature of) MOAR TPS.
I made no generic claims about whether "systems with more data are inherently more complex than systems with less data."
That depends on the inheritances (ie data dependencies or non-dependencies) of the system in question. Usenet? No. Bitcoin? Yes. Your retreat into generalities is noted, with all due scorn.
Raising the block size, if done responsibly with a view to present entailments (100k max tx) and forward implications (Future Gavin vs 2015 Gavin), is not as obvious as 'changing a config setting.' Again, "don't pretend any of this stuff is obvious." DoS blocks are only one example of why Bitcoin is only now scaling to 1MB, and why massive order-of-magnitude jumps are hubris.
I want to enable Layer 2+ using the minimum of additional functionality in Layer 1. You want to stuff all of Layer 2+ into Layer 1. It doesn't take a PhD in linguistics to see who is proposing bloat.
Funny how you try to throw the term "eventually" in my face, when I've already said I agree a block size will happen in exactly that timespan. Quick, pout moar about what a horrible person I am for agreeing with Satoshi!
Layer 1 and Layer 2 has nothing to do with software features, its an arbitrary economic division that you are using to try and confuse the issue. (Or are confused by?).
I think block size increase should be done in good time to stop all of this forced LN/sidechain/alt-coin nonsense you are pimping. If those things are good, and wanted then they will stand on there own merit. Whereas you think we should do it later, after rome is burning.
What is your motive for this?
there is competition from altcoins to consider. If we leave 99% of the market on the table because of ultraconservatism about blocksize, we let an altcoin have all that, and Bitcoin gets swept by the wayside. And guess which one ends up more decentralized.
This important comment made me think that it's a good time to review just how Bitcoin has fared against the altcoins since a useful comparison has been made possible by coinmarketcap. Using the Wayback machine I got one data-point (aggregate values in USD) for each month as close to the 9th (first one) as possible. The chart below shows Bitcoin's monetary base (or market cap) as a percentage of all cryptocurrency excluding Ripple.
There is a very slight trend down (black), exacerbated by the recent LTC ramp, probably pre-halving noise as smooth says. I have shown the y-axis from 0% to avoid the scarier looking trend when base-lined at 80%.
This chart is interesting because it shows that despite the acrimonious 1MB debate it is not yet having a serious effect on price, and similarly the 1MB is not yet crippling user volumes and driving up usage (and therefore enhanced value) of alternative crypto.
Yesterday, we had a BIP [77? 103?] from Pieter, which is extremely welcome and the first official solution from the 1MBers in Core Dev. Unfortunately, this BIP pursues minimal change, with 2MB blocks only in 2021 and 10MB blocks (effectively the same capacity as Dogecoin today), in 2030. Personally, I think this will leave a severe bottleneck in Bitcoin throughput by about Q2/Q3 2016 and the major risk of a sharp change down in trend in the chart above.
...
cypherdoc
At least you, TPTB and Martin Armstrong agree on something (price of gold going way down).
How unusual, how utterly rare...
Must be a Blue Moon happening soon or something. Or TEOTWAWKI?
cypherdoc
At least you, TPTB and Martin Armstrong agree on something (price of gold going way down).
How unusual, how utterly rare...Must be a Blue Moon happening soon or something. Or TEOTWAWKI?
Jump to: