Topic: Is Bitcoin Suffering from Analysis Paralysis ? - page 2. (Read 2195 times)

agree wholeheartedly

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.

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

Well said.

Andresen represents the interests of the Sand Hill Road crowd and their Deep State handlers.  This is textbook "Embrace, Extend, Extinguish."

The Sand Hill Road crowd and their Deep State handlers are perfectly comfortable with the status quo.

For all their trendy paeans to disruption, they are extremely cozy with the TBTF vampire/zombie banks Satoshi created Bitcoin to kill.

They don't like the idea of anything displacing TPTB, to put it mildly.

But they love the idea of suborning Bitcoin into a point-of-sale gimmick with a chance of collecting rent in the manner of Visa and Mastercard.

Yes, it says "one party to another" but not 'every party to all others.'

Some parties' payments are worthy to be allowed onto Satoshi's blockchain, but most of them are not.

For the rest, there exist thanks to Bitcoin's example plenty of other alternative blockchains, as well as off-chain payment aggregators/processors.

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.

"The node count is far more important than the blocksize."
Andresen does not agree on this. He needs to step down imo cuz he lost the way.

The decnetralisation of the network has priority over max txs. Not because i want it that way but because bitcoin doesn't have any value at all without defensibility and decentralisation.
Decentralisation is the holy grail which Andresen suggested to neglect for the benefit of chewgum transactions.

'A purely peer to peer version of electronic cash would allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution'

The very first sentence of the Bitcoin white paper.

And slightly further down.

'What is needed is an electronic payment system based on cryptographic proof instead of trust, allowing any two willing parties to transact directly with each other without the need for a trusted third party.'

It may be a tad idealistic, a lot of folks are too dumb or lazy to think through what it entails and act on it, but that's the core of the whole thing.

There is a real possibility of having to appease some paranoid asshole in order to gain access to blockchain usage in the future, Coinbase offers countless examples of that happening right now.

In what possible way is this a good outcome for anyone?

First of all, "sane and non-inflationary financial institutions whose sanity and honesty are ensured by the holy blockchain" are nothing to sniff at, much less gloss over with a dismissive catch-all generic term like "transparent."

"The entire idea" of Bitcoin is to shit all over the BIS and its constituent taxpayer-subsidized TBTF vampire/zombie banks.

Everyone (except Babylon Banksters) benefits from that, as interest rates will return to normal and wars of aggression cannot be financed with debt slavery.

If peons don't want to use off-(Bitcoin)-chain services to buy their peon treats, they may use directly any number of on-(altcoin)-chain alternatives.

It is still important to preserve equality of opportunity however, so that even peons may elect be their own banker when they need to buy a house, start a business, or pass on an inheritance.

The gist is that "peons" just use dogecoin to buy their chewgum, mate... no centralized service needed. In case you want every chewgum transaction on the blockchain then bitcoin itself will become a "central service" and thus loose most of its value anyways because ... well, without decentralisation it's worthless ...

With how Andresen opened and conducted this debate he has shown himself to be unfit for the job imo. His "visa rivalery" was more important to him than "consensus and decentralisation" which shows he doesn't even understand the basic concepts.

And again: the "problem" he tries to solve doesn't even exist!

Sorry, I skipped almost your entire post and just read the bit about Satoshi. I got it completely out of context .

The gist of that is that the peons will have to go to centralised services for the honour of participating in Bitcoin usage. Transparent or not, doesn't that  shit somewhat all over the entire idea of it?

Did you for some strange reason read my post from bottom to top?

If you include the context, and read in the normal top to bottom manner, you may be less confused:

Yes he did, the link below shows the genesis block transaction, and you can see the embedded message at the bottom of the page below CoinBase. The blockchain.info website automatically decodes it.

https://blockchain.info/tx/4a5e1e4baab89f3a32518a88c31bc87f618f76673e2cc77ab2127b7afdeda33b?show_adv=true

CoinBase
04ffff001d0104455468652054696d65732030332f4a616e2f32303039204368616e63656c6c6f7 2206f6e206272696e6b206f66207365636f6e64206261696c6f757420666f722062616e6b73
(decoded) ��
EThe Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks

Just don't give a fuck.
Buy alts. Bitcoins' marketcap is too high with these kind of problems!

There is no scalability issue because we already have at this very moment more than enough blockchains to provide as many txs as the world needs.
This whole debate was an epic strategic misconduct, it shows what greed is able to do to people and it leads to cannibalism inside bitcoin. Abandon ship! A greed-motivated proposal of large implications about a non-existant problem has put bitcoin in misfavour.
The cap is too high! Andresen needs a little shitcoin to play with not this big ship. And he'll get a shitcoin smaller than Litecoin to "rival visa" but nobody will care.

Don Quichotte fighting the windmills of scalability

Just release GavinCoin as an altcoin and let it stand or fall on its own merit already.


Satoshi created Bitcoin to destroy the TBTF vampire/zombie banks, not replace Visa:


Satoshi did not inscribe anything like this in Genesis:



To quote the great davout,


Bitcoin is a r3VOLution being fought for financial freedom, not a point of sale gimmick to better enable smartphone coffee purchases.

In the end, we will eventually need to increase the block size if Bitcoin continues growing.
How this is done, however, is up to debate. It can either be done instantly at a set time, or gradually over time.
Alternatively, the time between blocks could be reduced, also allowing for a higher transaction capacity.
Regardless of the final resolution, these debates are important to ensure that Bitcoin can continue to evolve safely.

Just increase the block size already.

The weirdos who fantasise about charging 0.1 BTC tx fees when the blocks fill up will quickly be left to play amongst themselves once every right thinking person fucks Bitcoin off and shops elsewhere.

You can never please everyone. The people they should be thinking of are the ones who are yet to arrive. That means keeping usage realistically priced and not pandering to the warped purists.

I'm sure one section of the community asked him to go ahead, but I'm also sure another section will continue to vocally demand he does not go ahead. I don't believe the whole community will ever reach consensus over the idea, and yes, the debate is probably damaging Bitcoin.

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.”