Topic: Open Letter to GMaxwell and Sincere Rational Core Devs - page 8. (Read 34840 times)
Ya, bitcoin as a high powered settlement system.
You can quote this all you want but it doesn't state his intentions. That's why the debate exists.
Does this speak to his intentions?
Forgot to add the good part about micropayments. While I don't think Bitcoin is practical for smaller micropayments right now, it will eventually be as storage and bandwidth costs continue to fall. If Bitcoin catches on on a big scale, it may already be the case by that time. Another way they can become more practical is if I implement client-only mode and the number of network nodes consolidates into a smaller number of professional server farms. Whatever size micropayments you need will eventually be practical. I think in 5 or 10 years, the bandwidth and storage will seem trivial.
this thread has now filled up with posters that have no intention addressing the actual content of the argument put forth. Just like every other thread these posters don't understand that "I want bigger blocks and more tps therefore..." is not a scientifically founded argument. You each of no understanding of macro economics and you think that its acceptable to be asserting your opinion without at all attempting to align your ignorance with accepted economic science. It's just a bunch of ignorant people misquoting Satoshi and implying he said things that he didn't.
"Go read the whitepaper"....
But it doesn't say what you are implying. Thats why the debate exists, because a whole bunch of ignorant people can't admit they have no idea what they are talking about.
Satoshi set the standard for consensus so high that ignorance cannot prevail, ignorance cannot reset the 1mb limit. It doesn't matter how stupid and vocal you are.
"Go read the whitepaper"....
But it doesn't say what you are implying. Thats why the debate exists, because a whole bunch of ignorant people can't admit they have no idea what they are talking about.
Satoshi set the standard for consensus so high that ignorance cannot prevail, ignorance cannot reset the 1mb limit. It doesn't matter how stupid and vocal you are.
That being said, if you care about Satoshi's intentions then it is incorrect to say that his intention was to never change the blocksize limit.
He, himself, specifically stated otherwise:
We can phase in a change later if we get closer to needing it.
It can be phased in, like:
if (blocknumber > 115000)
maxblocksize = largerlimit
It can start being in versions way ahead, so by the time it reaches that block number and goes into effect, the older versions that don't have it are already obsolete.
When we're near the cutoff block number, I can put an alert to old versions to make sure they know they have to upgrade.
if (blocknumber > 115000)
maxblocksize = largerlimit
It can start being in versions way ahead, so by the time it reaches that block number and goes into effect, the older versions that don't have it are already obsolete.
When we're near the cutoff block number, I can put an alert to old versions to make sure they know they have to upgrade.
"It can we can I can." Satoshis intention was to never change the blocksize limit.
Satoshi's intentions really don't matter. He's not here, and this is no longer his project.
That being said, if you care about Satoshi's intentions then it is incorrect to say that his intention was to never change the blocksize limit.
He, himself, specifically stated otherwise:
We can phase in a change later if we get closer to needing it.
It can be phased in, like:
if (blocknumber > 115000)
maxblocksize = largerlimit
It can start being in versions way ahead, so by the time it reaches that block number and goes into effect, the older versions that don't have it are already obsolete.
When we're near the cutoff block number, I can put an alert to old versions to make sure they know they have to upgrade.
if (blocknumber > 115000)
maxblocksize = largerlimit
It can start being in versions way ahead, so by the time it reaches that block number and goes into effect, the older versions that don't have it are already obsolete.
When we're near the cutoff block number, I can put an alert to old versions to make sure they know they have to upgrade.
"It can we can I can." Satoshis intention was to never change the blocksize limit.
Are you Satoshi?
Have you read the white paper, or did you fail to include a few major points when you wrote it?
On the topic of value, the only reason for me to hold any bitcoin is because it has value.
For me, bitcoin only has value when it has utility.
That utility is the ability to spend it through a transparent, balanced blockchain.
If the blockchain can not handle the TPS needed for me to spend it at a reasonable cost, then bitcoin has no utility for me and thus no value for me, and there is no point in me holding any. I'll use a different crypto-currency.
That is why I want bigger blocks. Without bigger blocks, bitcoin loses the utility for me that it use to have just a year ago, and it loses value regardless of the price.
You are being disingenuous. You very well know that one of bitcoin's utilities that you find useful is that it's deflationary and thus a good savings/sov. For me, bitcoin only has value when it has utility.
That utility is the ability to spend it through a transparent, balanced blockchain.
If the blockchain can not handle the TPS needed for me to spend it at a reasonable cost, then bitcoin has no utility for me and thus no value for me, and there is no point in me holding any. I'll use a different crypto-currency.
That is why I want bigger blocks. Without bigger blocks, bitcoin loses the utility for me that it use to have just a year ago, and it loses value regardless of the price.
And yes you will use a different current for your everyday spending.
I'm pointing to reality folks. 1mb is here, email satoshi if you want him to change it.
"It can we can I can." Satoshis intention was to never change the blocksize limit.
On the topic of value, the only reason for me to hold any bitcoin is because it has value.
For me, bitcoin only has value when it has utility.
That utility is the ability to spend it through a transparent, balanced blockchain.
If the blockchain can not handle the TPS needed for me to spend it at a reasonable cost, then bitcoin has no utility for me and thus no value for me, and there is no point in me holding any. I'll use a different crypto-currency.
That is why I want bigger blocks. Without bigger blocks, bitcoin loses the utility for me that it use to have just a year ago, and it loses value regardless of the price.
For me, bitcoin only has value when it has utility.
That utility is the ability to spend it through a transparent, balanced blockchain.
If the blockchain can not handle the TPS needed for me to spend it at a reasonable cost, then bitcoin has no utility for me and thus no value for me, and there is no point in me holding any. I'll use a different crypto-currency.
That is why I want bigger blocks. Without bigger blocks, bitcoin loses the utility for me that it use to have just a year ago, and it loses value regardless of the price.
Bitcoin with bigger blocks serves absolutely no purpose.
Bullshit. It serves the purpose of allowing more transactions to occur on the blockchain per unit time. Whether or not that is something you desire is irrelevant.
I got him figured out.
Like me, like many of us, traincar is an idealist.
Like me, like many of us, like Satoshi even, he (or she) sees Bitcoin as a means to his (or her) idealism.
But how he (or see) sees Bitcoin bringing about that idealism is radically different.
Well, he or she is free to have that vision, but is going to have to live with the fact that I will not sacrifice my vision, that many of us will not sacrifice our vision, so he can see if Bitcoin brings about his vision.
Satoshi never intended to remove the limit.
Satoshi never intended to get close to the limit.
Quote
It can be phased in, like:
if (blocknumber > 115000)
maxblocksize = largerlimit
It can start being in versions way ahead, so by the time it reaches that block number and goes into effect, the older versions that don't have it are already obsolete.
When we're near the cutoff block number, I can put an alert to old versions to make sure they know they have to upgrade.
if (blocknumber > 115000)
maxblocksize = largerlimit
It can start being in versions way ahead, so by the time it reaches that block number and goes into effect, the older versions that don't have it are already obsolete.
When we're near the cutoff block number, I can put an alert to old versions to make sure they know they have to upgrade.
In b4 OP says: It can we can I can. Satoshis intention was to never change the blocksize limit.
... and the initial was 32MB - OK
Satoshi never intended to remove the limit.
Satoshi never intended to get close to the limit.
Quote
It can be phased in, like:
if (blocknumber > 115000)
maxblocksize = largerlimit
It can start being in versions way ahead, so by the time it reaches that block number and goes into effect, the older versions that don't have it are already obsolete.
When we're near the cutoff block number, I can put an alert to old versions to make sure they know they have to upgrade.
if (blocknumber > 115000)
maxblocksize = largerlimit
It can start being in versions way ahead, so by the time it reaches that block number and goes into effect, the older versions that don't have it are already obsolete.
When we're near the cutoff block number, I can put an alert to old versions to make sure they know they have to upgrade.
In b4 OP says: It can we can I can. Satoshis intention was to never change the blocksize limit.
Satoshi never intended to remove the limit.
Satoshi never intended to get close to the limit.
Quote
It can be phased in, like:
if (blocknumber > 115000)
maxblocksize = largerlimit
It can start being in versions way ahead, so by the time it reaches that block number and goes into effect, the older versions that don't have it are already obsolete.
When we're near the cutoff block number, I can put an alert to old versions to make sure they know they have to upgrade.
if (blocknumber > 115000)
maxblocksize = largerlimit
It can start being in versions way ahead, so by the time it reaches that block number and goes into effect, the older versions that don't have it are already obsolete.
When we're near the cutoff block number, I can put an alert to old versions to make sure they know they have to upgrade.
First you have to learn about the rules of the forum you are using. They are pretty simple.
Then you have to understand, that Nash's Ideal Money is not related to Bitcoin as much as you are trying to imply. It might have been one of the inspirations for Satoshi Nakamoto when he (or she or them ... whatever) created Bitcoin as an alternative currency. That was the real revolutionary step and not your blocksize theory. Nash didn't invent Bitcoin, but Satoshi Nakamoto did. He created the real thing, which is open source, decentralized and backed by math and cryptography and it works like a store of value and at the same time as a medium for exchange. Bigger Blocks will NOT change that. Bitcoin will NOT lose its gold properties (store of wealth) because of bigger blocks. It will only allow more transactions per block and will lead to a lower fee, because there will be enough space for low fee transactions. Satoshi knew, that it might be necessary to change the blocksize later, if there was a consensus about it. If there wasn't it wouldn't happen.
OP, you already failed to convince Bitcoin core devs about your idea of how Bitcoin SHOULD be, because you present nothing but some constructed connections between Nash's Ideal Money and Bitcoins blocksize. Another point where OP is mistaken, is that he thinks Bitcoin=Bitcoin Core Devs. Why else should you desperately try to convince Bitcoin Core Devs and the Bitcoin community, instead of finding developers, who will support your idea and create a competitor to Bitcoin (= Altcoin) based on that?
If you are intelligent, maybe you should change your conversation tactics from "calling people names" to "beeing nice and constructive" when you want to make a change and present your "revolutionary" ideas.
There is nothing to be done, no dev to higher, no coin to build. Bitcoin the way it is is set to unfold the way nash describes, and there is no scientific proposal that the markets will accept otherwise.
Quote
Satoshi never intended to remove the limit.
You didn't present a proof of your knowledge of Satoshi Nakamoto intentions. This is just speculation.If there is nothing to be done, like you stated, why this efford to convince the core devs about blocksize? Things will happen in Nash's sense anyway.
If you read papers like https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43339.pdf "Bitcoin: Questions, Answers, and Analysis of Legal Issues" you should understand, that Bitcoin is NOT "a system that was intended for the meta players and big banks etc."
Governments worldwide see Bitcoin as a potential thread to the fiat system and when you understand Bitcoin, you will find out how clueless "they" are about what to do against the Bitcoin thread when it grows to a critical limit. They are also mentioning that international cooperation will be necessary to avoid this scenario. Next step would rather be an attempt to criminalize Bitcoin use to stabilize the monetary system, instead of creating a competitor (government issued Altcoin), that would need some basic characteristics, that Bitcoin has, but with banks as intermediary and without mining and a decentralized double spending resistant system backing it.
i'm going to go out on a limb here and say you are wrong! 
You are arguing with John Nash's argument that he developed and explained over a period of 20 years, and you haven't even attempted to understand what he has said.what does it matter to me if fiat "stabilizes because bitcoin remains unchanged"?
are you staying the price of bitcoin is stable in that graph? I have no idea what you are saying, I read it like 10 times.
its stable for 10 years and then BOOM and then stable for 10 years and then BOOM.
is this a problem?
are you staying the price of bitcoin is stable in that graph? I have no idea what you are saying, I read it like 10 times.
i'm going to go out on a limb here and say you are wrong!
You are arguing with John Nash's argument that he developed and explained over a period of 20 years, and you haven't even attempted to understand what he has said.
i'm going to go out on a limb here and say you are wrong!
just because the monetary base is deflationary doesn't mean its PRICE ( in relations to goods and services ) will be unstable.
you said it yourself Price is not Value.
but realize that value is irrelevant, all that really matters is price.
while you might expect the price of a deflationary money to always slowly rise, in fact it is the underlying value that is slowly rising, price will not necessarily ( and often never ) match value.
here's a neat little chart that plots price and value in relation to BigMacs over time.
even in the very early days of all this, this kind of Value Vs Price pattern is emerging... why is that?
because speluction + used as money.
just because the monetary base is deflationary doesn't mean its PRICE ( in relations to goods and services ) will be unstable.
you said it yourself Price is not Value.
but realize that value is irrelevant, all that really matters is price.
while you might expect the price of a deflationary money to always slowly rise, in fact it is the underlying value that is slowly rising, price will not necessarily ( and often never ) match value.
here's a neat little chart that plots price and value in relation to BigMacs over time.
even in the very early days of all this, this kind of Value Vs Price pattern is emerging... why is that?
because speluction + used as money.
First you have to learn about the rules of the forum you are using. They are pretty simple.
Then you have to understand, that Nash's Ideal Money is not related to Bitcoin as much as you are trying to imply. It might have been one of the inspirations for Satoshi Nakamoto when he (or she or them ... whatever) created Bitcoin as an alternative currency. That was the real revolutionary step and not your blocksize theory. Nash didn't invent Bitcoin, but Satoshi Nakamoto did. He created the real thing, which is open source, decentralized and backed by math and cryptography and it works like a store of value and at the same time as a medium for exchange. Bigger Blocks will NOT change that. Bitcoin will NOT lose its gold properties (store of wealth) because of bigger blocks. It will only allow more transactions per block and will lead to a lower fee, because there will be enough space for low fee transactions. Satoshi knew, that it might be necessary to change the blocksize later, if there was a consensus about it. If there wasn't it wouldn't happen.
OP, you already failed to convince Bitcoin core devs about your idea of how Bitcoin SHOULD be, because you present nothing but some constructed connections between Nash's Ideal Money and Bitcoins blocksize. Another point where OP is mistaken, is that he thinks Bitcoin=Bitcoin Core Devs. Why else should you desperately try to convince Bitcoin Core Devs and the Bitcoin community, instead of finding developers, who will support your idea and create a competitor to Bitcoin (= Altcoin) based on that?
If you are intelligent, maybe you should change your conversation tactics from "calling people names" to "beeing nice and constructive" when you want to make a change and present your "revolutionary" ideas.
There is nothing to be done, no dev to higher, no coin to build. Bitcoin the way it is is set to unfold the way nash describes, and there is no scientific proposal that the markets will accept otherwise.
Jump to: