Topic: John Nash created bitcoin - page 8. (Read 22273 times)

Whales will do what makes the most economics sense, i.e. that which is most profitable. Thus they will do what I wrote.

Math and economics game theory isn't something you can argue with. It is either stated correctly, or you must point out the error. There was no valid error pointed out by anyone about my logic.

I wrote "I think" as a way of saying I am open to reading anyone valid errors in my logic. So far, I have seen no such valid errors pointed out.

"I think" is not acceptable.
Either you know, or you don't.

However, I think whales will end up demanding a kickback from miners for their transaction fees, so that miners can jack up fees on non-whales. Whales can make this demand because they can refuse to send their transactions to miners which won't deal. Yet non-whales can't make a credible threat, because miners who generally offered lower fees would end up losing hashrate relative to those miners who didn't defect from the fee market. Thus I think you will probably see miners colluding to extract the maximum fees that gouge non-whales.

Nope.

Listen idiot, don't argue with me about math.

My comment: Only a greater idiot would argue with an idiot. Much like a shadow elite playing sand castle with a beggar.

Lol. You still suffer from Dunning-Kruger delusions.

My comment: And you are suffering from Ultimate Supreme Intelligence syndrome? Anything ultimate, supreme, or intelligent, you deserve not. No, you are suffering from basic delusion.

My math is correct.

And the same can be said of yours.

You're (lack of) comprehension of the math I showed, is incorrect.

You're math is incorrect.

No, my math is not incorrect.

You entirely didn't understand the math. Both of your blue comments are incorrect. Sorry but you really need to go re-read and learn 8th grade mathematics. What were you doing since age 13 that you've forgotten the math that you were taught then.

So therefor he created a design that he knew the Chinese ASIC manufacturers would figure out how to make covert AsicBoost and that if it was patented outside of China, then this would be the poison pill against any changes to the protocol (as I have recently explained at @gmaxwell's Redditard discussion).

My comment: Are you aware that China didn't discover bitcoin on its own and didn't mine bitcoin on its own initiative? China was proposed to mine and work on bitcoin by the same group of people that developed bitcoin. The mining technologies were not from China (they are not technologically competent for the job). Thus, all parties involved (Chinese manufacturers and the "satoshi" group) may already knew such hack as AsicBoost all along since the start. Thus there may be no such suspicion that "he knew the Chinese manufacturers would figure out" because they were already told such hack is in place. And do you know the Chinese miners are part of the shadow elites' network (knowingly or unknowingly)?

You can't just analyze from the perspective of a percentage fee, because the blocksize is constrained.

My comment: The blocksize is constrained but not the monetary value of bitcoin. And the % fee is not based on the blocksize (which is limited), but on the monetary value of bitcoin (which is unlimited). It's just like using gold to facilitate global commerce. Many say gold is too limited in supply for the role, but some say, well, just adjust the price of gold (upward) will just do. The same is with bitcoin.

It can become possible that transacting in morsels as small as 1 BTC is no longer possible.

My comment: If that's true, then we can throw out the 8 decimals of bitcoin as we won't be using it soon. The fact that it is well thought out to have 8 decimals is very probably because we will still be transacting in fractions of bitcoin no matter the fee.

Let's assume that whales will put complex settlement transactions on the blockchain with many inputs and outputs so perhaps only 100 transactions per block. Presuming that whales are willing to pay 0.1% fee for security (i.e. $600,000 per block), that means a minimum transaction fee of $6000. If whales are willing to pay more for security, say 1%, then minimum transaction fee of $60,000.

My comment: Hmmm... that scenario above sounds like my Scenario A whereby fee (not fixed, no minimum) is based on certain % of transaction value. This is fine.

However, I think whales will end up demanding a kickback from miners for their transaction fees, so that miners can jack up fees on non-whales. Whales can make this demand because they can refuse to send their transactions to miners which won't deal. Yet non-whales can't make a credible threat, because miners who generally offered lower fees would end up losing hashrate relative to those miners who didn't defect from the fee market. Thus I think you will probably see miners colluding to extract the maximum fees that gouge non-whales.

My comment: This is plausible but not guaranteed. And gives rise to risk of such corruption being publicly disclosed. By right if my Scenario A plays out, the whales should have no complain even if fee reaches $600,000 as long as price of BTC is $600,000,000/unit to commensurate. And by that time, the miners may very likely be centralized by super farms/nodes, or something like that, thus no risk of collusion between whales and miners (that may eventually be owned by the same whales).

So perhaps 10% fees so $600,000 per transaction. You'll pay it because you have no choice, whereas the whales will have exempted themselves from the fee. So in other words, we will be paying the fees for the whales, eventually the millionaires paying exorbitant fees in order to transact unregulated.

You'll of course be able to avoid that exorbitant fees by going through a regulated option as I explained previously.

My comment: So there is a way out after all from exorbitant fee after all. That's a relief.

So the bottom line is the whales will be free from regulation and we will not. We remain slaves.

My comment: We are all slaves, with or without bitcoin, and with or without regulation. Bitcoin being a digital tracker to enforce obedience and compliance is not here to free us.

Is rpietila also part of that group? what will happen to him? he seemed like a cool guy.

Re: PRE-ANN: People's Mark - basic income local currency in Finland - launch Oct2016



This is a technological and political-economic flaw. A Nash equilibrium immutable protocol should be the law, not humans.

A system mutable by humans is a power vacuum.

Satoshi did this minimization because it is good design sense, it is sufficient security and collision resistance, it provides an extra layer of protection against any unknown cryptanalysis interaction between SHA256 (or RIPE160) alone and ECDSA, and it helps to market the product to the n00bs as scalable (even though Satoshi was deception in this regard) in Bitcoin's nascent stage. Also SHA256 before RIPE160 provides an extra layer of protection against any unknown cryptanalysis breakage on collisions for RIPE160 alone. For example, SHA256 has a Merkle-Damgard length extension weakness when not doubled with itself or another hash, which tangentially btw would provide someone with a strong hint as to where to look for inventing the AsicBoost to make SHA256 mining 30% more efficient.

No one wants a bitcoin network where they'll have to pay more than 1% of the transaction amount as a fee

I disagree. People will see an incentive to hold bitcoin as long as the price keeps going to the moon. If the fee is 0.01 BTC, but the price of 1 BTC is $10,000 with prospects of going $100,000 BTC, then who is the idiot that doesn't want to hold that?

As long as the price keeps going up and the fees allow you to move your wealth when needed, it will have an incentive to be the holder's coin.

If the fee becomes higher than 99% of people's wealth and only billionaires see a point in using it, well that's a problem, everyone else will have dumped and only a few will be using it (and I don't see how it can survive in this state, since barely any transaction volume would be going on for miners to be worth mining)

Well we can estimate given that BTC trades 1/100th of its market cap daily. So @ $500k per BTC thus a $10 trillion market cap, thus $100 billion transacted daily. Given 144 blocks per day, that is $600 million per block.

Let's assume that whales will put complex settlement transactions on the blockchain with many inputs and outputs so perhaps only 100 transactions per block. Presuming that whales are willing to pay 0.1% fee for security (i.e. $600,000 per block), that means a minimum transaction fee of $6000. If whales are willing to pay more for security, say 1%, then minimum transaction fee of $60,000.

However, I think whales will end up demanding a kickback from miners for their transaction fees, so that miners can jack up fees on non-whales. Whales can make this demand because they can refuse to send their transactions to miners which won't deal. Yet non-whales can't make a credible threat, because miners who generally offered lower fees would end up losing hashrate relative to those miners who didn't defect from the fee market. Thus I think you will probably see miners colluding to extract the maximum fees that gouge non-whales.

So perhaps 10% fees so $600,000 per transaction. You'll pay it because you have no choice, whereas the whales will have exempted themselves from the fee. So in other words, we will be paying the fees for the whales, eventually the millionaires paying exorbitant fees in order to transact unregulated.

You'll of course be able to avoid that exorbitant fees by going through a regulated option as I explained previously.

So the bottom line is the whales will be free from regulation and we will not. We remain slaves.