Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 95.

solex

legendary

Activity: 1078

Merit: 1006

100 satoshis -> ISO code

Quote from: sickpig on July 25, 2015, 03:05:04 AM

the thing that I can't grok at all about arguments contrary to max blk size increase is the "fee-pressure" one.

isn't the fixed and over time decreasing tokens emission already supposed to take care of it?

why do we need to anticipate the time when miners should sustain theirs activity through fees?

When Satoshi designed Bitcoin he expected most users of it to be able to mine using their own full nodes, receiving block rewards, for a lot longer than actually happened, ASIC farms and mining pools hijacked the reward emission to a certain extent. So people who run full nodes are often not mining and not compensated for handling ever larger blocks. So the idea of higher and higher fees is to force tx volumes lower than what the market and ecosystem would like, purely in the theory that it helps the non-mining nodes with less overhead.

The real solution to this is a combination of several things: node services payment channels (like JR has written about), blockchain pruning, Lightning Network type off-chain services, and IBLT which reduces the block propagation bandwidth requirements.

If all these changes were happening then there would be no pressure to try forcing a (misguided) centrally planned fees-market.

sickpig

legendary

Activity: 1260

Merit: 1008

the thing that I can't grok at all about arguments contrary to max blk size increase is the "fee-pressure" one.

isn't the fixed and over time decreasing tokens emission already supposed to take care of it?

why do we need to anticipate the time when miners should sustain theirs activity through fees?

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

Quote from: solex on July 25, 2015, 02:42:21 AM

Quote from: inca on July 24, 2015, 02:13:17 AM

I cannot wait until we fork this problem away.

Yep.

interesting reddit post that sums up the fork in the road debate nicely. https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3ef6h1/bitcoin_ideology_do_you_vote_for_a_or_b/

Quote

Multiple Choice Question:
Do you see bitcoin in the future as:
A) a scaling peer to peer network with ultra cheap transactions, for anyone globally to use, with bitcoin functioning as internet cash, avoiding financial intermediaries or banks.
B) a settlement layer for banks, fin tech companies and early adopters, with a low volume expensive to transact upon blockchain

The root of the issue is that option "B" Bitcoin as a high-fee high-value settlement layer, without "A" scaling and widespread growing ecosystem usage happening first, is economic illiteracy of the first order. "B" by itself is simply a wet-dream of Blockchain Economics central planner fanbois.
If the 1MB is allowed to crowd out regular user tx, not just spam, then fees will plateau and inexorably decline amid an ongoing PR disaster.

Fortunately rescue from the 1MB4EVR idiocy seems likely.
Gavin is fixing the cpu-intensive bloat-tx attack threat, and then it looks like the change to an 8MB block limit will be offered to the community. I hope that Gavin and Jeff team up for this. When I first learned about Bitcoin it was Satoshi, Gavin, Jeff and Sipa who were commit access Core Dev (though Satoshi was already the Silent One). If it takes just two of them to get Bitcoin back on the track to success - then all power to them!

Hey hey, as early adopter, I resemble that!

solex

legendary

Activity: 1078

Merit: 1006

100 satoshis -> ISO code

Quote from: inca on July 24, 2015, 02:13:17 AM

I cannot wait until we fork this problem away.

Yep.

interesting reddit post that sums up the fork in the road debate nicely. https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3ef6h1/bitcoin_ideology_do_you_vote_for_a_or_b/

Quote

Multiple Choice Question:
Do you see bitcoin in the future as:
A) a scaling peer to peer network with ultra cheap transactions, for anyone globally to use, with bitcoin functioning as internet cash, avoiding financial intermediaries or banks.
B) a settlement layer for banks, fin tech companies and early adopters, with a low volume expensive to transact upon blockchain

The root of the issue is that option "B" Bitcoin as a high-fee high-value settlement layer, without "A" scaling and widespread growing ecosystem usage happening first, is economic illiteracy of the first order. "B" by itself is simply a wet-dream of Blockchain Economics central planner fanbois.
If the 1MB is allowed to crowd out regular user tx, not just spam, then fees will plateau and inexorably decline amid an ongoing PR disaster.

Fortunately rescue from the 1MB4EVR idiocy seems likely.
Gavin is fixing the cpu-intensive bloat-tx attack threat, and then it looks like the change to an 8MB block limit will be offered to the community. I hope that Gavin and Jeff team up for this. When I first learned about Bitcoin it was Satoshi, Gavin, Jeff and Sipa who were commit access Core Dev (though Satoshi was already the Silent One). If it takes just two of them to get Bitcoin back on the track to success - then all power to them!

Cconvert2G36

sr. member

Activity: 392

Merit: 250

I'm sure mining node operators with the ability to handle 2MB blocks will displace those that can only "handle" 1MB.

Tempest in a teapot. BIP 102 wouldn't change the landscape at all. But snarking redditards is so much fun...

iCEBREAKER

legendary

Activity: 2156

Merit: 1072

Crypto is the separation of Power and State.

Quote from: cypherdoc on July 24, 2015, 09:50:09 PM

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on July 24, 2015, 09:46:35 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on July 24, 2015, 09:13:50 PM

devs should stick to what they know best; coding. they are inexperienced and naive in areas such as fee markets or finance, much less game theory. most of them have little experience in dealing with ppl much less starting a business. ppl who understand these things and who have knowledge regarding the history of money and economics certainly can help prevent missteps along the way.

That's true for devs in general. Security, crypto, and especially BTC devs by necessity and predilection have deep understandings of game theory.

But yes, they should stick to coding and not (attempt) central management of tx fee markets, regardless of pleas of 'Oh, won't someone think of the users!'

then why do we hear nothing but cries of "centralization" from gmax et al despite this?

Because having ~5 entities, with no way to verify their independence, controlling over 50% of the hashrate is not ideal for decentralization.

I'm certain gmax has already explained that to you, but too lazy to find the cite ATM. Tongue

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on July 24, 2015, 09:46:35 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on July 24, 2015, 09:13:50 PM

devs should stick to what they know best; coding. they are inexperienced and naive in areas such as fee markets or finance, much less game theory. most of them have little experience in dealing with ppl much less starting a business. ppl who understand these things and who have knowledge regarding the history of money and economics certainly can help prevent missteps along the way.

That's true for devs in general. Security, crypto, and especially BTC devs by necessity and predilection have deep understandings of game theory.

But yes, they should stick to coding and not (attempt) central management of tx fee markets, regardless of pleas of 'Oh, won't someone think of the users!'

then why do we hear nothing but cries of "centralization" from gmax et al despite this?

iCEBREAKER

legendary

Activity: 2156

Merit: 1072

Crypto is the separation of Power and State.

Quote from: cypherdoc on July 24, 2015, 09:13:50 PM

devs should stick to what they know best; coding. they are inexperienced and naive in areas such as fee markets or finance, much less game theory. most of them have little experience in dealing with ppl much less starting a business. ppl who understand these things and who have knowledge regarding the history of money and economics certainly can help prevent missteps along the way.

That's true for devs in general. Security, crypto, and especially BTC devs by necessity and predilection have deep understandings of game theory.

But yes, they should stick to coding and not (attempt) central management of tx fee markets, regardless of pleas of 'Oh, won't someone think of the users!'

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on July 24, 2015, 06:40:19 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on July 24, 2015, 05:58:47 PM

Garzik starting to get it more and more

Nope, Garzik is losing his grip and confusing BTC's economic figure with its development ground.

Tx fees have always been destined to wean the network off, and ultimately replace, block subsidies. It's not a "new" policy.

Who appointed Garzik as Bitcoin's FOMC and granted him the power to regulate fee pressure?

Fee pressure is something to be celebrated as a milestone towards Bitcoin independence (and away from Ponzi territory), not feared and used to justify panic reactions just because fees rise from 1/8 to 1/4 of a pittance.

Garzik whines (and exaggerates) about slightly higher tx fees differing "radically" from "what users have experienced for the past ~6 years."

So what? Users have also experienced sub-$10k BTC in the past. If BTC rises to $10k, should we increase block emission to preserve UX?

The spectacle of a Bitcoin core dev wringing his hands over "disruption" and "new economic policy" is hard to endure. As PWuille stated so powerfully and succinctly:

Quote

Bitcoin Core is not running the Bitcoin
economy, and its developers have no authority to set its rules. Change in
economics is always happening, and should be expected. Worse, intervening
in consensus changes would make the ecosystem more dependent on the group
taking that decision, not less.

So to point out what I consider obvious: if Bitcoin requires central
control over its rules by a group of developers, it is completely
uninteresting to me. Consensus changes should be done using consensus, and
the default in case of controversy is no change.

devs should stick to what they know best; coding. they are inexperienced and naive in areas such as fee markets or finance, much less game theory. most of them have little experience in dealing with ppl much less starting a business. ppl who understand these things and who have knowledge regarding the history of money and economics certainly can help prevent missteps along the way.

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

bullish:

iCEBREAKER

legendary

Activity: 2156

Merit: 1072

Crypto is the separation of Power and State.

Quote from: cypherdoc on July 24, 2015, 05:58:47 PM

Garzik starting to get it more and more

Nope, Garzik is losing his grip and confusing BTC's economic figure with its development ground.

Tx fees have always been destined to wean the network off, and ultimately replace, block subsidies. It's not a "new" policy.

Who appointed Garzik as Bitcoin's FOMC and granted him the power to regulate fee pressure?

Fee pressure is something to be celebrated as a milestone towards Bitcoin independence (and away from Ponzi territory), not feared and used to justify panic reactions just because fees rise from 1/8 to 1/4 of a pittance.

Garzik whines (and exaggerates) about slightly higher tx fees differing "radically" from "what users have experienced for the past ~6 years."

So what? Users have also experienced sub-$10k BTC in the past. If BTC rises to $10k, should we increase block emission to preserve UX?

The spectacle of a Bitcoin core dev wringing his hands over "disruption" and "new economic policy" is hard to endure. As PWuille stated so powerfully and succinctly:

Quote

Bitcoin Core is not running the Bitcoin
economy, and its developers have no authority to set its rules. Change in
economics is always happening, and should be expected. Worse, intervening
in consensus changes would make the ecosystem more dependent on the group
taking that decision, not less.

So to point out what I consider obvious: if Bitcoin requires central
control over its rules by a group of developers, it is completely
uninteresting to me. Consensus changes should be done using consensus, and
the default in case of controversy is no change.

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

This sounds just grand:

http://www.coindesk.com/research-banks-unprepared-for-digital-disruption/?utm_content=bufferdac01&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

electerium

full member

Activity: 179

Merit: 100

Quote from: cypherdoc on July 24, 2015, 05:58:47 PM

Garzik starting to get it more and more:

https://twitter.com/jgarzik/status/624712746471329792

I keep asking, you think Nasdaq expects or wants to have to compete, do an RBF, or pay high fees in getting every stock trade marker into the MC? Nor will they ever accept a SC solution.

Why wouldnt they prefer to use a sidechain where they can control and better obfuscate transactions?

Even such, as long as it is built on top of bitcoin, does it really matter whether Nasdaq's intent is to rely on the main chain or not?

The advantage of bitcoin is that it has been around for 6 years and has proven itself to be extremely robust as a protocol that handles transactions. If Nasdaq wants to create it's own private altcoin, that would take years of planning with hundreds of businesses and entities to ensure that their altcoin would be able to serve everybody. I don't think anyone in the world even today, 6 years after the launch of bitcoin, could create such a business plan that can be executed in a meaningful time period (e.g. inside of 10 years) where this altcoin would be able to supercede bitcoin's capabilities.

They would rather buy their own miners, form a pool, and obfuscate their transactions on a sidechain than to wait 10 years on a piece of software or technology that bitcoin could render obsolete in months because of its open source nature.

sidhujag

legendary

Activity: 2044

Merit: 1005

Quote from: cypherdoc on July 24, 2015, 06:11:31 PM

Quote from: sidhujag on July 23, 2015, 12:55:19 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on July 23, 2015, 12:42:43 PM

oops, gold going negative again.

ah, that sweet smell of deflation.

Next jobs claim is gonna be a doozy... lowest claims for unemployment insurance since '74. Look for mickey mouse game to continue with a 300pt rise

You were right on the report but wrong on the reaction. What are you going to do?

http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2015/07/weekly-initial-unemployment-claims_23.html?m=1

on a friday thats pretty bad... still buy the dip risk reward here is great

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

Quote from: sidhujag on July 23, 2015, 12:55:19 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on July 23, 2015, 12:42:43 PM

oops, gold going negative again.

ah, that sweet smell of deflation.

Next jobs claim is gonna be a doozy... lowest claims for unemployment insurance since '74. Look for mickey mouse game to continue with a 300pt rise

You were right on the report but wrong on the reaction. What are you going to do?

http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2015/07/weekly-initial-unemployment-claims_23.html?m=1

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

Garzik starting to get it more and more:

https://twitter.com/jgarzik/status/624712746471329792

I keep asking, you think Nasdaq expects or wants to have to compete, do an RBF, or pay high fees in getting every stock trade marker into the MC? Nor will they ever accept a SC solution.

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

Kinda late, eh?:

https://twitter.com/cypherdoc2/status/624663002151788544

jt byte

hero member

Activity: 994

Merit: 500

The gold price is dropping so fast guys.
May i know what is happening? Maybe that bitgold?
Maybe the gold is as a digital currency?

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

Gavin's solution to solve ~~25 sec~~ long time validation attack blocks ala the single 1MB f2pool block of a coupla wks ago:

http://bitcoin-development.narkive.com/wEdAXkTT/for-discussion-limit-transaction-size-to-mitigate-cve-2013-2292#post6

tvbcof

legendary

Activity: 4760

Merit: 1283

Quote from: macsga on July 24, 2015, 03:14:38 PM

Uh oh. Gold doesn't look good... The $700 scenario is approaching fast.

Fantastic! I decided for a variety of financial and political reasons to sell the house I bought. (I got caught up in doing this to get rid of some extra cash in late 2010 after I'd already downloaded the Bitcoin source but had not gotten around to compiling it. Had I not, I probably would have bought and/or mined a lot more Bitcoin for a much lower price. Oh well.) Anyway, I will have a problem about what to do with the cash when the house sells. If I can get physical PMs for anywhere near the same price as paper PMs it will solve my excess cash problem nicely. I've for some time expected an extreme dip in PM prices (at least of the paper variety) as a precursor to some real fireworks in mainstream land. Perhaps this could be the one. (Hope not...hard times follow for everyone.)

Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 95. (Read 2032266 times)