Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 90. (Read 2032266 times)

I would like to see an altcoin that is sufficiently different from Bitcoin see some real long term success. Healthy competition is good. I know it won't happen though because exchanges.

That is a key word right there "reasonable".  I certainly haven't had any great epiphany as to how to choose the correct size or how to make it a reliably updated thing.   Predictability and anything that removes human consensus making from an ongoing process is what I would favor.   

This is exactly where reasonable people differ.

ICEBREAKER, I am not attributing all of the below to you.   Just using your comment as a springboard for some thinking I have been going through over the past few months as tensions increase on block size.

I have heard this statement "tx fees are underpriced"  and "fee market is broken" several times and I still don't get it.    Mainly because the way it gets portrayed is that we must raise fees now vs. let things develop naturally otherwise miners can't stay in business.   When the block reward halves what do you think happens?   My expectation is that miners will still need to pay the bills in fiat so the fiat per BTC ratio will increase.    This increase, by it's very nature, increases the fiat "profit" per transaction fee.   So, if fiat/BTC increases due to reward changes the fees go up from the perspective of a fiat holder.   Heck, I suspect the block reward will be a major factor in driving fiat/BTC ratio until the block reward gets close to the average transaction fee.  .

If anything, we should get the blocksize to the largest rationally supportable size and allow nature to take it's course.   Fees, from a fiat perspective, will go up even if the miners do nothing to prioritize transactions by fee or increase the bitcoin denominated standard fee.    Miners will still make a profit as scarcity drives the fiat/btc ratio and the fee market will continue to develop as a means of preserving scarce resources and preventing spam.   It seems to have done an adequate job so far and this may be the best possible outcome with respect to keeping bitcoin globally relevant.   One of the biggest drivers of adoption we have at our disposal is the fiat/btc ratio. 

There must be something I have been missing in the arguments I see about this.   Where does the above thinking not work?    Thanks ICEBREAKER for letting me borrow your words.

In a single year, it's gone from nothing to the #6 legitimate coin by market cap (~$5 million).

What makes you think it's now suddenly going to stop moving up the ranks?

don't hold your breath.  Monero isn't going anywhere.

^fify

And look, another Monero shill for Frap.doc to expose:

https://github.com/monero-project/bitmonero/commits?author=laanwj   

EVERYTHING down, Bitcoin UP 

Block size has topped this list for as long as.. well, since there was a list.
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Hardfork_Wishlist

If it were easy, it would have been done already.  Patience people....

I'm amazed there exist Legendary posters who don't understand the assigned roles and limitations of incentive, consensus, and defection in Bitcoin.  They (IE Solex and Frap.doc) need to spend more type reading up on Bitcoin 101, and less time writing 1000s of misinformed posts from positions of ignorance.

I'd expect this kind of derpy mental diarrhea from a noob:

Nobody is claiming to have predetermined that sidechains (or LN) are necessarily the ENTIRETY of the solution to the scaling problem, only that they are potentially part of it.  Bitcoin is an ongoing bleeding-edge experiment, and we are working with intuition, educated guesses, hypotheses, and prototypes, not off-the-shelf kit in neat little boxes.

Increasing block size does add features (and/or bugs), in the form of higher tps and whatever concomitant other new auto/adaptive regulation mechanisms come along with the eventual solution.  100k max tx size is probably only the first such required adjustment.

And thus, the 100k max tx adjustment neatly destroys your claim that larger blocks do not introduce additional complexity.  More is different; the dose makes the poison...

The Red Queen interpretation, whereby we must change Bitcoin ASAP for the sake of keeping it the same, is absurd.  Moving the tx supply curve with the goal of controlling the range where it intersects that of demand is prima facie centralized market manipulation.  As long as tx fees are absurdly underpriced, in terms of their cost and what users are willing to pay, the fee market is completely broken.  Bitoin's 'free sample/loss leader' viral marketing campaign phase ended with the emergence of omnipresent 'cosmic background spam.'

The "pissing contest" which "frightens" your delicate sensibilities is exactly the "fight" to which Tannenbaum exhorts us, because the "adversarial process is valuable in assuring [features] do not compromise security or reliability."

Looking even better now, I have not seen the ask side look this thin in quite some time, it will be interesting to see how it fills in.

this looks good too:

i guess it was indeed good.

this looks good:

I know! It's only a valid vote if it's conducted under the rules as sanctioned by central control.

Giveen our understand of the situation it could never happen.

The major stakeholders vote for a blocksize increase is just a prediction of the fork to a more distributed code base that supports the original vision of Bitcoin. It is yet to happen it's my opinion that it's a forgone conclusion, we'll have bigger blocks, the vote is just around the corner so you don't need to do much if you feel you have this one in the bag.

nice article:

Letting the 1 trillion euro ($1.1 trillion) plus scheme to buy chiefly government bonds run longer could be better still, he suggested. "It may need to go beyond that," he said.

the black hole of death.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/imf-paints-dim-picture-europe-151453069.html

http://brontecapital.blogspot.com/2012/06/macroeconomics-of-chinese-kleptocracy.html

http://brontecapital.blogspot.com/2012/06/follow-up-to-china-kleptocracy-post.html

I figure they know.  Its just that some CP members got caught long... the small bump needed to liquidate is now complete and so down we go.