Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 83. (Read 2032247 times)

The free market doesn't do anything "by itself", it's an abstract concept.

The act of building software (or anything else for that matter) is done by people who need to organize to complete the task. They can't all just sit back and wait for a magical "free market" to come along and do the work for them.

What would you propose that the free market wouldn't do by itself?

There are security challenges with a network consisting mostly of light nodes.

Why aren't more people talking about ways to address them rather than using their existence as an excuse to prevent progress?

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.

I score this for Mike.

He's made a strong case for what the original vision was, and maybe from the perspective of "social contract" that should be kept regardless of whether it is viewed as the "best thing" for Bitcoin. Obviously opinions strongly differ on the latter, and maybe that has to do with the context of us now living in a post-Snowden era which didn't exist when that "original vision" was defined. But the argument against the original vision being nodes all in data centers, most people using SPV, etc. is getting very thin.

There are security challenges with a network consisting mostly of light nodes.

Why aren't more people talking about ways to address them rather than using their existence as an excuse to prevent progress?

I'll bet that 8-20 MB block-chain will not last more than few hours.

by running a full node you're helping to prop your investment in the coin and you should be using it to secure your own tx's; which should be a security measure you're willing to pay for.  as the user base grows, if we let it, then merchant base grows with it and they will be more than willing from a security and fiduciary standpoint to increase the availability of full nodes across the network.

Much like anywhere else where liquidity moves within a
system, value will move to the network of least friction.  The reality right
now is it's very easy to move value from Bitcoin to another blockchain with
less friction.  Because of this, there will never be a high value settlement
network created by an artificially imposed limit on transaction rate.  The
value will simply bleed out of Bitcoin to alternative blockchains offering
lower fees if this is attempted.  This is basic economics.

He's made a strong case for what the original vision was, and maybe from the perspective of "social contract" that should be kept regardless of whether it is viewed as the "best thing" for Bitcoin. Obviously opinions strongly differ on the latter, and maybe that has to do with the context of us now living in a post-Snowden era which didn't exist when that "original vision" was defined. But the argument against the original vision being nodes all in data centers, most people using SPV, etc. is getting very thin.

Gmax finally getting the treatment he deserves:

http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3f26b7/thank_you_mike_hearn_for_sticking_up_for_us_this/

You are correct to question whether the incentives for miners coincides with what is optimal for the rest of the network.  As we see with empty blocks and non-validated blocks these can differ.  However, your assumption that these do not coincide whatsoever is unsupported.  And with Bitcoin it is all we have, barring some centralized committee making arbitrary decisions like we have today with the core devs.

"Extracting?"  What an interesting word choice.   

You make it sound like I put Satoshi's quote through some kind of violent mechanical processing, instead of the commonplace practice of editing for clarity and brevity.  But we all understand your goal here is to impute and exaggerate my intellectual dishonesty, in order to distract from the larger issue of why Team Gavinista is losing the Bitcoin Civil War.

The BitDNS discussion was not germane and thus excluded.  A link to the full text of the primary source was provided.

It's coming soon:

https://github.com/bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt/pull/22

It's coming soon:

https://github.com/bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt/pull/22

Gmax finally getting the treatment he deserves:

http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3f26b7/thank_you_mike_hearn_for_sticking_up_for_us_this/

If Satoshi had said from the start,

"Bitcoin cannot ever scale. So I intend it to be heavily limited and used only by a handful of people for rare transactions. I picked 1mb as an arbitrary limit to ensure it never gets popular."

... then I'd have not bothered getting involved. I'd have said, huh, I don't really feel like putting effort into a system that is intended to NOT be popular. And so would many other people.