What if they fork it, and the majority decides to stick with the original Bitcoin? What then?
btw it's a good idea
Topic: Is Bitcoin Suffering from Analysis Paralysis ? (Read 2195 times)
btw it's a good idea
Funny how Andresen creates this Paralysis situation and then dares to complain about it. That guy isn't right in the head, i can tell you that.
He has done more for the bitcoin community than you. Your achievements include trolling a bitcoin forum extolling the virtues of altcoins.
Yes, Gavin has done a lot to embrace, extend, and extinguish Bitcoin.
What has MP ever done? I mean, besides maintain a hack-free online exchange and rescue OpenBSD?
Nobody knows for sure what it's best for Bitcoin in the long run, and Gavin sees it just as an experiment, likely HIS experiment. The only value Bitcoin has for him is the paycheck he receives, so if his moves damage Bitcoin it's not a problem for him, it's just that, just an experiment.
From what i've understood, what we know for a fact is something has to to be done.
20MB fork = risk
Staying the way we are until 2016+ = risk
So pick your poison.
Funny how Andresen creates this Paralysis situation and then dares to complain about it. That guy isn't right in the head, i can tell you that.
He has done more for the bitcoin community than you. Your achievements include trolling a bitcoin forum extolling the virtues of altcoins.
Gimme a break.
Nobody knows for sure what it's best for Bitcoin in the long run, and Gavin sees it just as an experiment, likely HIS experiment. The only value Bitcoin has for him is the paycheck he receives, so if his moves damage Bitcoin it's not a problem for him, it's just that, just an experiment.
After Gavin Andresen’s proposal to increase Bitcoin block size to 20 MB, chief scientist posted a new blogpost.
In it, Andresen spared himself from discussing the technical aspects of his proposal but moderately focused on the inconsistencies within the Core Bitcoin project. He feared that the lack of consensus over the Bitcoin’s proposed block size is leading its development to a fancy stage, known as “Analysis Paralysis”.
Prior to introducing us to this term, Andresen openly recognized the criticism made by a section of Bitcoin community — regarding the lack of proper research and testing into the economic implications and security of the proposal. He however also recognized that the fear of tackling these challenges are also slowing down the Bitcoin development en masse.
“I’m convinced the uncertainty over when or if this will be resolved is harming Bitcoin,” Andresen added. “If somebody can point me at a successful software technology that went through years and years of debate and research and was not deployed until it was perfect I’d change my mind – the example that immediately comes to my mind is Project Xanadu versus the Internet.”
He is clearly trying to win back the community’s trust. Well, The community, has responded positively to his new and calmer approach — and have asked him to go ahead with the fork.
“I say just release the updated version with an increased block size, and see how many people update it,” one of the users commented. “It’s a voluntary choice to update. That’s the vote.”
In it, Andresen spared himself from discussing the technical aspects of his proposal but moderately focused on the inconsistencies within the Core Bitcoin project. He feared that the lack of consensus over the Bitcoin’s proposed block size is leading its development to a fancy stage, known as “Analysis Paralysis”.
Prior to introducing us to this term, Andresen openly recognized the criticism made by a section of Bitcoin community — regarding the lack of proper research and testing into the economic implications and security of the proposal. He however also recognized that the fear of tackling these challenges are also slowing down the Bitcoin development en masse.
“I’m convinced the uncertainty over when or if this will be resolved is harming Bitcoin,” Andresen added. “If somebody can point me at a successful software technology that went through years and years of debate and research and was not deployed until it was perfect I’d change my mind – the example that immediately comes to my mind is Project Xanadu versus the Internet.”
He is clearly trying to win back the community’s trust. Well, The community, has responded positively to his new and calmer approach — and have asked him to go ahead with the fork.
“I say just release the updated version with an increased block size, and see how many people update it,” one of the users commented. “It’s a voluntary choice to update. That’s the vote.”
It's not a simple as "voluntary choice to use the XT client is the vote".
If you are using for example Bitpay for work related stuff, and Bitpay moves to XT, you'll be forced to use XT to keep using their services.
And it will be a mess, imagine half of big companies like Bigpay move to XT, and a lot of other companies stay with Core.
Every company out there supporting BTC will be forced to take the huge 50% gamble of staying Core or going XT, and one of the 2 chains will for sure suffer from some sort of crash. You are forcing legit big companies to take a gamble with this.
And who are these "gatekeepers?"
You yourself advocate going through financial institutions and offchain processors. These already exist and they're already shutting people down who might make them look bad in the eyes of The Man.
Bitcoin existed long before CoinBase, and it will still exist long after fiat exchanges are obsolete.
And who are these "gatekeepers?"
You yourself advocate going through financial institutions and offchain processors. These already exist and they're already shutting people down who might make them look bad in the eyes of The Man.
Like cypherdoc, your error is to confuse the equality of (Bitcoin) opportunity Satoshi created with the equality of (cryptocash) outcome provided by altcoins, sidechains, Lightning, etc.
Alts, sidechains and 'bitcoin banks' are all more vulnerable to either being wiped out or having gatekeepers deciding whether you're worthy
Nonsense.
Good luck wiping out LTC/DOGE/VIA's Scrypt-secured merged-mined blockchains.
Good luck wiping out botnet-backed ASIC resistant XPM and XMR.
And who are these "gatekeepers?"
Can coblee confiscate my LTC? How is Sunny King going to veto my XPM and PPC tx?
Will TacoTime declare me persona non grata and banish me from using XMR?
You Bitcoin Maximalist Monopolists are very paranoid and apparently enjoy drowning in oceans of self-imposed FUD.
Said "paralysis" was created because this debate has not been solely technical. From a technical standpoint it's a bad idea, not necessary atm and better solutions can be explored. Nothing about this debate was academic. So this paralysis is rooted in that.
Every debate to its root is political, since that involves decision making, and the decision is affected by each participant's different view
Unfortunately there is no one have the overview of the world: Gavin is good at computer and network, but he has shown lack of competence in business and economy. From merchant and miner's point of view, the stability and credibility of bitcoin is most important, that requires as little change as possible
When everyone is facing the same problem, it is much easier to reach consensus, so just let those blocks fill up and see what will happen
2.7 tx per second seems like a perfectly sane limit for a global value storage and transaction system.
And when all these new uppity establishment types give up on the system, we can safely trade our tokens back and forth with the other 10k users in the world.
After all, the few thousand full bitcoin nodes are really constrained with storage and traffic as it stands, bottlenecking things for a few mBTC in fees sounds perfect for our current place in the coin distribution.
It might even be fantastic for our altcoin holdings.
And when all these new uppity establishment types give up on the system, we can safely trade our tokens back and forth with the other 10k users in the world.
After all, the few thousand full bitcoin nodes are really constrained with storage and traffic as it stands, bottlenecking things for a few mBTC in fees sounds perfect for our current place in the coin distribution.
It might even be fantastic for our altcoin holdings.
Bro, it's not about what "the establishement" wishes, it's about what's technically the best solution to ensure longterm sustainability and operationability.
Nobody gives a fuck about "the establishement". They can launch their altcoin shitcoin and see how that goes down the drain because it's not sustainable longterm.
This debate is a technical one and not a political or marketing thing. What the non-technical uppity ones want is of no interest. If they want it bad they can launch an alt any day.
Said "paralysis" was created because this debate has not been solely technical. From a technical standpoint it's a bad idea, not necessary atm and better solutions can be explored. Nothing about this debate was academic. So this paralysis is rooted in that. It's about the tech and not about the wishes of some prices and princesses in their ivory castles. Because these assholes go later: "oops, we fucked it up. Didn't see that coming. Ok, let's move on now. We didn't need it anyways." and go "trololololo"
2.7 tx per second seems like a perfectly sane limit for a global value storage and transaction system.
And when all these new uppity establishment types give up on the system, we can safely trade our tokens back and forth with the other 10k users in the world.
After all, the few thousand full bitcoin nodes are really constrained with storage and traffic as it stands, bottlenecking things for a few mBTC in fees sounds perfect for our current place in the coin distribution.
It might even be fantastic for our altcoin holdings.
And when all these new uppity establishment types give up on the system, we can safely trade our tokens back and forth with the other 10k users in the world.
After all, the few thousand full bitcoin nodes are really constrained with storage and traffic as it stands, bottlenecking things for a few mBTC in fees sounds perfect for our current place in the coin distribution.
It might even be fantastic for our altcoin holdings.
IMO, major mining pools and mining farms will not upgrade until there are too many transactions being queued for too long
And even so, they will first try to throw away those transactions that do not pay a fee, and then use a fee structure to decide the priority of transactions, or do dynamic transaction allocation. There are still lot's of tools to use
This follows the old rule of complex system: As long as it works, don't fix it
And even so, they will first try to throw away those transactions that do not pay a fee, and then use a fee structure to decide the priority of transactions, or do dynamic transaction allocation. There are still lot's of tools to use
This follows the old rule of complex system: As long as it works, don't fix it
But but but...
The spook-backed VC princelings won't invite Lady Bitcoin to the Los Altos Debutante Ball if she doesn't signal her obsequience by accommodating their desire to shove every transaction possible into her blockchain, as soon as possible.
Lady Bitcoin needs to put out for the frat bros, or she might become unpopular.
If the cool kids don't let her sit at their table, she will have no life and die an old unloved cat lady.
/every GavinCoin apologist ever
IMO, major mining pools and mining farms will not upgrade until there are too many transactions being queued for too long
And even so, they will first try to throw away those transactions that do not pay a fee, and then use a fee structure to decide the priority of transactions, or do dynamic transaction allocation. There are still lot's of tools to use
This follows the old rule of complex system: As long as it works, don't fix it
Maybe Gavin is right, he can see the future in advance, much earlier than anyone else. But as long as majority of miners don't see that, they will not welcome changes that might risk their investment
And even so, they will first try to throw away those transactions that do not pay a fee, and then use a fee structure to decide the priority of transactions, or do dynamic transaction allocation. There are still lot's of tools to use
This follows the old rule of complex system: As long as it works, don't fix it
Maybe Gavin is right, he can see the future in advance, much earlier than anyone else. But as long as majority of miners don't see that, they will not welcome changes that might risk their investment
Then have them read this: https://medium.com/@octskyward/crash-landing-f5cc19908e32
IMO, major mining pools and mining farms will not upgrade until there are too many transactions being queued for too long
And even so, they will first try to throw away those transactions that do not pay a fee, and then use a fee structure to decide the priority of transactions, or do dynamic transaction allocation. There are still lot's of tools to use
This follows the old rule of complex system: As long as it works, don't fix it
Maybe Gavin is right, he can see the future in advance, much earlier than anyone else. But as long as majority of miners don't see that, they will not welcome changes that might risk their investment
And even so, they will first try to throw away those transactions that do not pay a fee, and then use a fee structure to decide the priority of transactions, or do dynamic transaction allocation. There are still lot's of tools to use
This follows the old rule of complex system: As long as it works, don't fix it
Maybe Gavin is right, he can see the future in advance, much earlier than anyone else. But as long as majority of miners don't see that, they will not welcome changes that might risk their investment
full member
Activity: 882
Merit: 102
PayAccept - Worldwide payments accepted in seconds
I told you in the 20MB fork discussion Vertcoin would moon because of this. Look where we are now. Keep listening to the 20MB fanboys and your bitcoins will loose all value. Vertcoin is up 2000% last 90 days. I've been correct.
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:9gThlUg-Zu0J:https://bitcointalk.org/index.php%3Ftopic%3D941331.2710%3Bimode+&cd
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:9gThlUg-Zu0J:https://bitcointalk.org/index.php%3Ftopic%3D941331.2710%3Bimode+&cd
So what youre saying is theres no such thing as having upgraded wallets to hold and handle 20 mb?
We dont have the current problem. I thought its like 300 kb per transaction or less.
What i'm saying is that 20MB blocks will come at a cost and that cost will not outweigh the benefits. Totally not.
We are looking at:
-HUGE blockchain - too large for 90% of people to store. You will be dependant on central services for your txs. Less accessibiltiy.
-Sync problems
-No incentive for miners to mine after blockrewards go down. Fees are needed for network security.
-Even lesser nodes, more central mining
on top of that: cannibalism because some powerful people within bitcoin community who do not agree will attack the Gavincoin on all levels.
VTC offers a counterargument with preventing asics at all costs and having a more decentral network with more nodes. That's why it has a future. This rise was predictable.
Got a problem? Sweet, i buy the solution
Handsome profits there.
Alts, sidechains and 'bitcoin banks' are all more vulnerable to either being wiped out or having gatekeepers deciding whether you're worthy than a fully functioning Bitcoin blockchain that's readily accessible to all.
Merge mining with the btc network makes alts less vulnerable to attacks and secure enough for smaller money. That comes without gatekeepers and they won't be whiped out. I think a decentral bitcoin mining many merge mined chains is longterm sustainable.
More centralised mining and blockchain bloat for btc won't be such an intelligent solution compared to that.
Merged mined altchains provide as much space as you need for small "peon" txs.
And the good thing is: we don't even need this annoying discussion for that or any changes to bitcoin. It's all plug and play. Code is written already. Coins exist aswell.
And there is no need to endanger the network or community consensus for that and open a can of worms with that how Andresen tries to do.
There's no way I'd want to have to pay 1 BTC in fees for the honour of converting that to Doge so I can buy a car. Equally if I decide I want to pay a large Ukrainian to shove a lawnmower up my arse I don't want Coinbase stopping me from doing it because it makes them look bad.
There is no way you wold ever pay such high fees because of the free market effect. It regulates itself. Tx fees will rise to a certain point at which microtransactions will be uneconomical and will move to altchains for economical reasons (lower txs) which in turn lowers fees for btc txs again.
It is selfregulating much like the difficulty.
Txs will be what people are willing to pay to use "Bitcoin" instead of an altchain. I think that'll be somewhere between 1cent and 2dollar depending on several things.
-------
currently you see another interesting free market effect with loans for margin traders on poloniex for example. "Demand and supply" aplies and this priciple always works. It will work for tx fees aswell.
We don't need central planning and "seasonal adjustements" in Bitcoin because the free market effect can govern price of coins, rates of loans, it can govern difficulty and it will also be able to govern tx fees if that makes sense?
Like cypherdoc, your error is to confuse the equality of (Bitcoin) opportunity Satoshi created with the equality of (cryptocash) outcome provided by altcoins, sidechains, Lightning, etc.
Alts, sidechains and 'bitcoin banks' are all more vulnerable to either being wiped out or having gatekeepers deciding whether you're worthy than a fully functioning Bitcoin blockchain that's readily accessible to all.
There's no way I'd want to have to pay 1 BTC in fees for the honour of converting that to Doge so I can buy a car. Equally if I decide I want to pay a large Ukrainian to shove a lawnmower up my arse I don't want Coinbase stopping me from doing it because it makes them look bad.
I don't get what the benefits of your scenario are.
What if they fork it, and the majority decides to stick with the original Bitcoin? What then?
I told you in the 20MB fork discussion Vertcoin would moon because of this. Look where we are now. Keep listening to the 20MB fanboys and your bitcoins will loose all value. Vertcoin is up 2000% last 90 days. I've been correct.
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:9gThlUg-Zu0J:https://bitcointalk.org/index.php%3Ftopic%3D941331.2710%3Bimode+&cd
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:9gThlUg-Zu0J:https://bitcointalk.org/index.php%3Ftopic%3D941331.2710%3Bimode+&cd
So what youre saying is theres no such thing as having upgraded wallets to hold and handle 20 mb?
We dont have the current problem. I thought its like 300 kb per transaction or less.
Funny how Andresen creates this Paralysis situation and then dares to complain about it. That guy isn't right in the head, i can tell you that.
For what its worth, I agree with all your posts on this thread. Jump to: