Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 94. (Read 2032266 times)

Already been explained.  It's called "scaling."


Pro tip: bloating is not scaling, bloating is just more of the same (only with negative marginal return).

C) all of the above, and more

It's a trick question (false dilemma fallacy), because of the duality of big-B Bitcoin (the first successful e-cash implementation) and small-b bitcoin (blockchain technology).

Small-b bitcoin has already forked, in the form of alts, so as to ensure ultra cheap p2p global tx for all mankind.

Big-B Bitcoin, still in its early life cycle, is in the phase where it distinguishs itself and diverges  from Bitcoin-like blockchains, on the way to becoming the (ultra-secure, expensive, low volume) Mother of All settlement layers and global reserve e-cash.

The commonplace category error plaguing us at the moment results from failing to recognize this bifurcation (and reading Satoshi's Whitepaper in that context), or refusing to countenance the existence of alts (IE small-b bitcoin) because of some nutty Maximalist Monopolist Fundamentalist Supremacist ideological stance.

PLease explain how bitcoin will proceed over the next few years with the blocksize fixed at 1mb and continue to be successful Odalv.

lol, small blocks equal smart minds.   (contrary big and stupid)

Go to your XT fork and get it over with already.  Please! This will be the best thing which ever happened for Bitcoin and more importantly, for distributed crypto-currencies in a general sense.  I do wish you would get with it, but I predict that if it gets enough traction to happen at all it will coincide with an event which would make people otherwise look to Bitcoin as a wealth preservation tool.

how much does it cost you per node per month?

also, i asked before but you missed it... where are you getting those hash rate distribution graphs from? they dont match up with blockchain.info and others.

Small blocks equal small minds.

I have 6 nodes ready and waiting.

Converted to 0.10.2 XT. Eagerly awaiting the largeblocks version.

I've you conceptualize that core  dev determination of block size is central planning, then  it becomes clear why it doesn't  work.

Garzik Predicts ‘Chaos’ If Changes Made to Both Fee Structure and Block Size

http://cointelegraph.com/news/114966/garzik-predicts-chaos-if-changes-made-to-both-fee-structure-and-block-size

Yes that was a good reddit post 

I wouldn't expect to see gold go far below 1000 or touch the 1980's high.

If it does I will probably start buying some gold again. When bitcoin passes gold then it becomes interesting regarding the gold:bitcoin allocation in a portfolio. I dumped all my metals in 2011 but will probably reacquire some when the markets go pop.

what happens after gold price hits 700 or whatever ?
logic says it goes up from the low bound,
but how much, for how long (in case of continuing drop) ?

I can't "justify" it's continuation towards zero.
Won't there be another grand run up over the next 15 years or so ?
is it really "over" because of digital era ?

Yep, you hit it on the head. It's old and soon to be replaced by the new. I think we're going to see gold  parity once again, at the minimum.

I think the gold value will never collapsing, there are many ups and downs of every coin but gold is old

So they are trying to solve the ever increasing burden of running a full node for a non miner indirectly, through the mean of a side effect of an anti-DoS mechanism.

Am I right?

if I'm correct, It seems to me a rather convoluted way of thinking, why not just say that instead of use the fee pressure rethoric?

why not embrace JR's free market idea for full node services?

I honestly have no idea what China is doing with gold sales or purchases. It's not something I'm particularly concerned about.

Yes, well said, thank you.

The 1MB crowd constantly talks about how a fee market is necessary for bitcoin. Yes, of course, ultimately there must be a robust fee market. But there won't be one unless Bitcoin both continues to grow and continues to hold the vast majority of crypto-economic value. If we deliberately tell demand to go somewhere else at this stage, it will (and it won't necessarily be a btc-sidechain).

Many of us in this thread, who've been supporting the ecosystem for years, worked through the longrun adoption/mining/security/fee-market dynamic years ago. Fees remain low for many years while mining is subsidized by inflation. The combination of cheap/fast/global transactions is a big contributor (but not the only one, of course) to demand for bitcoin transactions. 3, 4, or 5 havings down the road, enough of this transaction demand probably exists that fees can still be low, and yet add up to about the same or more than the block reward. At this point, the fee market starts to really develop, and miners get selective, publish their fee preferences, vertically integrate services and compete all based on fees. Bitcoin matures and strengthens, all while remaining low-fee *and* high security; this is a very achievable years-from-now equilibrium.

With consistent demand, high security, a mature fee market, and known-well-in-advance dynamics, more and more people who operate the plumbing of the world's traditional financial system feel comfortable moving volume to Bitcoin. This is how a global settlement layer develops.

Intentionally stifling demand years before this happens is a terrible idea.

even more than that! it can change it all. thanks for sharing