Topic: Reversion to the mean (Read 2308 times)
Interesting, can you imagine the drama if the card networks pulled the rug right from under block stream. Might even warrent a #rekt
http://www.coindesk.com/could-card-networks-take-bitcoin-mainstream/
Simply sign a service agreement with VISA/Mastercard/AE and be done with the micro transaction capacity debate
Simply sign a service agreement with VISA/Mastercard/AE and be done with the micro transaction capacity debate
Op,
why u still arguing with the fagnamic duo ?
why u still arguing with the fagnamic duo ?
Because they are the cancer killing /b/itcoin
There you go again, trying to sell XT using the fear of Bitcoin dying.
Bitcoin is stronger than ever, in part thanks to the adversity provided by the attempted Gavinista governance coup.
You XTurds truly deserve to be exiled together on the Island of Misfit Gavinistas.
Such strange bedfellows the failed putsch has created! It sounds like a joke...
Frap.doc (a Bitcoin Maximalist Monopolist Supremacist), Peter R (a clueless spherical cow counter), and J Trolfi (King Buttcoin) walk into Satoshi's bar.
2 hours later, united by their common hatred of Team Core, they are giggling like long lost sisters.
"Let's get out of here" says Frap.doc. "Yes," responds Peter R, "the drinks are terrible, and the pours are too small!"
I think what iCEBREAKER said is on point, basically to sum it, there's no way raising the blocksize to 20, or even 8mb will get you anywhere close to where we need to be. There's no way around something like blockstream if you want to achieve VISA level transactions in the future. I am in favour of raising it a bit, but have in mind, there is no huge scalability possible if everything happens on chain.
I agree big blocks aren't *the* solution to scaling.
What Ice'n'Berg won't accept is that the block size limit should be increased or removed so that it doesn't cause a problem. They argue that is using fear to justify it, when anyone with a shred of common sense can see its just prudence.
Fear of centralisation is a concern, and for that reason I'd say that right now removing the limit entirely is probably equally risky as keeping at 1MB.
The mundane truth, as ever, is that somewhere in the middle is likely best.
I think what iCEBREAKER said is on point, basically to sum it, there's no way raising the blocksize to 20, or even 8mb will get you anywhere close to where we need to be. There's no way around something like blockstream if you want to achieve VISA level transactions in the future. I am in favour of raising it a bit, but have in mind, there is no huge scalability possible if everything happens on chain.
Op,
why u still arguing with the fagnamic duo ?
why u still arguing with the fagnamic duo ?
Because they are the cancer killing /b/itcoin
There you go again, trying to sell XT using the fear of Bitcoin dying.
Bitcoin is stronger than ever, in part thanks to the adversity provided by the attempted Gavinista governance coup.
You XTurds truly deserve to be exiled together on the Island of Misfit Gavinistas.
Such strange bedfellows the failed putsch has created! It sounds like a joke...
Frap.doc (a Bitcoin Maximalist Monopolist Supremacist), Peter R (a clueless spherical cow counter), and J Trolfi (King Buttcoin) walk into Satoshi's bar.
2 hours later, united by their common hatred of Team Core, they are giggling like long lost sisters.
"Let's get out of here" says Frap.doc. "Yes," responds Peter R, "the drinks are terrible, and the pours are too small!"
Are you trying to make a credible point? Because I don't see any.
Op,
why u still arguing with the fagnamic duo ?
why u still arguing with the fagnamic duo ?
Because they are the cancer killing /b/itcoin
There you go again, trying to sell XT using the fear of Bitcoin dying.
Bitcoin is stronger than ever, in part thanks to the adversity provided by the attempted Gavinista governance coup.
You XTurds truly deserve to be exiled together on the Island of Misfit Gavinistas.
Such strange bedfellows the failed putsch has created! It sounds like a joke...
Frap.doc (a Bitcoin Maximalist Monopolist Supremacist), Peter R (a clueless spherical cow counter), and J Trolfi (King Buttcoin) walk into Satoshi's bar.
2 hours later, united by their common hatred of Team Core, they are giggling like long lost sisters.
"Let's get out of here" says Frap.doc. "Yes," responds Peter R, "the drinks are terrible, and the pours are too small!"
Op,
why u still arguing with the fagnamic duo ?
why u still arguing with the fagnamic duo ?
Because they are the cancer killing /b/itcoin
We could've saved a lot of time if you had told me up front you're with the gang that proposes nodes will eventually be run in datacenters.
That is the default position...
Quote from: satoshi link=topic=532.msgmsg6306#msg6306
The current system where every user is a network node is not the intended configuration for large scale. That would be like every Usenet user runs their own NNTP server. The design supports letting users just be users. The more burden it is to run a node, the fewer nodes there will be. Those few nodes will be big server farms. The rest will be client nodes that only do transactions and don't generate.
This Thread is the best.
(I'm a 1BTC supporter, I'll stop using Bitcoin the day I can no longer run a full node client.)
(I'm a 1BTC supporter, I'll stop using Bitcoin the day I can no longer run a full node client.)
If bitcoin reaches that point it means the numbers of market participant outpace the number of people quitting because they can't run a node, which will be negligible.
"Let's sacrifice monetary sovereignty for more adoption"
Sacrificing you being able to run a node would not be a big loss TBH. Other than that monetary sovereignty still remains.
Not a big loss, smh
http://www.truthcoin.info/blog/measuring-decentralization/
Quote
To learn anything, you can either [1] check for yourself, or [2] trust the judgment of someone else. Trusting someone else implies a loss of local-ness. It definitely implies that P2P is lost: you are a subordinate taking the information from an authority. To preserve P2P, you’ll have to check everything yourself: run a full node.
Quote
The requirement to run an entire full node may seem like a high bar, but the height is appropriate. With money, other people’s actions (counterfeiting) affect you. The only way for you to know you’ve been paid, is to make sure that every piece of data has followed every rule, and you can’t do that unless you have all of the data, and all of the rules, in front of you. That’s a full node.
It is also reasonable to require that this node start from scratch, for the very same reasons: to learn something, you either validate it yourself or trust an authority. Authorities are not “peers”.
It is also reasonable to require that this node start from scratch, for the very same reasons: to learn something, you either validate it yourself or trust an authority. Authorities are not “peers”.
Your quotes are irrelevant because bitcoin will still be P2P and decentralized.
I love reading stuff when I don't have a clue about what I'm reading.
Are you guys seriously concerned about this or are you just bantering because you're getting paid to do so? You all do it well, whatever it is you're doing, and I really do enjoy reading things I don't understand. So Tally- ho, or whatever I mean. Maybe you've got some ideas that would support the price of a bitcoin.
Are you guys seriously concerned about this or are you just bantering because you're getting paid to do so? You all do it well, whatever it is you're doing, and I really do enjoy reading things I don't understand. So Tally- ho, or whatever I mean. Maybe you've got some ideas that would support the price of a bitcoin.
What level of fee people are comfortable with?
As far as I know, currently no one complains about the fee since they are almost neglectable if you are transacting anything more than 0.1 bitcoin
I tell you a real world example: A professor from china just visited me, and I told her to send me bitcoin for all her expenses so that I will give her euro to spend during her trip in Europe, and that will save her lots of time and fee from international bank transfer/exchange. But she complains a lot while she is opening an account in chinese bitcoin exchange. She doesn't want to save a couple of day's time and a couple of percent fee just because large bank makes her feel more comfortable
So you can see, even a wise professor would still not care about those fee of 3 percents when she is doing international transactions, how come the average people complain about the fee of bitcoin which is almost non-existent?
I think the pain point of fee for average people is around 5%, but the lower the education level, the higher it is. Many people trust western union to send money to their home country with ridiculously high 10+% fee, and they are still fine with it
So the fee still have magnitudes of room to rise without causing problem for adoption. And if some people think fee is too high, they would just combine several transactions and reduce the transaction frequency. So when the block is full, if everyone cut down their frequency by half, the block will immediately become half empty again. So a full block will not cause any problem for users, but will first cause problem for nodes if they have any infrastructure weakness
As far as I know, currently no one complains about the fee since they are almost neglectable if you are transacting anything more than 0.1 bitcoin
I tell you a real world example: A professor from china just visited me, and I told her to send me bitcoin for all her expenses so that I will give her euro to spend during her trip in Europe, and that will save her lots of time and fee from international bank transfer/exchange. But she complains a lot while she is opening an account in chinese bitcoin exchange. She doesn't want to save a couple of day's time and a couple of percent fee just because large bank makes her feel more comfortable
So you can see, even a wise professor would still not care about those fee of 3 percents when she is doing international transactions, how come the average people complain about the fee of bitcoin which is almost non-existent?
I think the pain point of fee for average people is around 5%, but the lower the education level, the higher it is. Many people trust western union to send money to their home country with ridiculously high 10+% fee, and they are still fine with it
So the fee still have magnitudes of room to rise without causing problem for adoption. And if some people think fee is too high, they would just combine several transactions and reduce the transaction frequency. So when the block is full, if everyone cut down their frequency by half, the block will immediately become half empty again. So a full block will not cause any problem for users, but will first cause problem for nodes if they have any infrastructure weakness
This Thread is the best.
(I'm a 1BTC supporter, I'll stop using Bitcoin the day I can no longer run a full node client.)
(I'm a 1BTC supporter, I'll stop using Bitcoin the day I can no longer run a full node client.)
If bitcoin reaches that point it means the numbers of market participant outpace the number of people quitting because they can't run a node, which will be negligible.
"Let's sacrifice monetary sovereignty for more adoption"
Sacrificing you being able to run a node would not be a big loss TBH. Other than that monetary sovereignty still remains.
Not a big loss, smh
http://www.truthcoin.info/blog/measuring-decentralization/
Quote
To learn anything, you can either [1] check for yourself, or [2] trust the judgment of someone else. Trusting someone else implies a loss of local-ness. It definitely implies that P2P is lost: you are a subordinate taking the information from an authority. To preserve P2P, you’ll have to check everything yourself: run a full node.
Quote
The requirement to run an entire full node may seem like a high bar, but the height is appropriate. With money, other people’s actions (counterfeiting) affect you. The only way for you to know you’ve been paid, is to make sure that every piece of data has followed every rule, and you can’t do that unless you have all of the data, and all of the rules, in front of you. That’s a full node.
It is also reasonable to require that this node start from scratch, for the very same reasons: to learn something, you either validate it yourself or trust an authority. Authorities are not “peers”.
It is also reasonable to require that this node start from scratch, for the very same reasons: to learn something, you either validate it yourself or trust an authority. Authorities are not “peers”.
This Thread is the best.
(I'm a 1BTC supporter, I'll stop using Bitcoin the day I can no longer run a full node client.)
(I'm a 1BTC supporter, I'll stop using Bitcoin the day I can no longer run a full node client.)
If bitcoin reaches that point it means the numbers of market participant outpace the number of people quitting because they can't run a node, which will be negligible.
"Let's sacrifice monetary sovereignty for more adoption"
Sacrificing you being able to run a node would not be a big loss TBH. Other than that monetary sovereignty still remains.
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1008
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
Op,
why u still arguing with the fagnamic duo ?
why u still arguing with the fagnamic duo ?
This Thread is the best.
(I'm a 1BTC supporter, I'll stop using Bitcoin the day I can no longer run a full node client.)
(I'm a 1BTC supporter, I'll stop using Bitcoin the day I can no longer run a full node client.)
If bitcoin reaches that point it means the numbers of market participant outpace the number of people quitting because they can't run a node, which will be negligible.
"Let's sacrifice monetary sovereignty for more adoption"
This Thread is the best.
(I'm a 1BTC supporter, I'll stop using Bitcoin the day I can no longer run a full node client.)
(I'm a 1BTC supporter, I'll stop using Bitcoin the day I can no longer run a full node client.)
If bitcoin reaches that point it means the numbers of market participant outpace the number of people quitting because they can't run a node, which will be negligible.
This Thread is the best.
(I'm a 1BTC supporter, I'll stop using Bitcoin the day I can no longer run a full node client.)
(I'm a 1BTC supporter, I'll stop using Bitcoin the day I can no longer run a full node client.)
That was a rhetorical question.
The point is that every miners pick their limit and obviously each of them have different resources therefore it follows that they will never agree on some magical soft limit every one of them will enforce.
That's just straight up delusional.
Of course miners have different resources and letting them compete for these resources is only good for the network to improve.
Why would miners need to agree on the soft limit? They don't have to. Those with the best resources will produce the bigger blocks. That's all.
Precisely.
You do know what you are describing is centralization and these bigger blocks will eventually make it impossible for me or you to run full nodes.
What I am describing is levelling up the game. Making it
You are so dumb.
There is no such thing as "good enough decentralization".
If I can't run a node because it costs several thousand dollars and 1GB/s bandwidth then Bitcoin is effectively worthless to me.
The only way to use Bitcoin in a truly trustless and private manner is by running a node.
Bitcoin is about monetary sovereignty, not depending on corporations, banking parasites and everyone else that can afford datacenters to maintain the network.
A PEER-TO-PEER NETWORK.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_good_enough
You are presenting a false dichotomy. If running a full node costs several thousand dollars and 1GB/s bandwidth the Bitcoin is worth a whole lot to a whole lot of other people. It being worthless to you is your call, not an absolute.
You don't need to run a full node, you might want to. I want bitcoin to totally replace cash. We both have our dreams
We could've saved a lot of time if you had told me up front you're with the gang that proposes nodes will eventually be run in decentralized datacenters.
FTFY
For anything else, there is an altcoin.
Decentralized datacenters
Datacenters decentralized all over the world the same way the internet was created by the US military to decentralize their datacenters.
That was a rhetorical question.
The point is that every miners pick their limit and obviously each of them have different resources therefore it follows that they will never agree on some magical soft limit every one of them will enforce.
That's just straight up delusional.
Of course miners have different resources and letting them compete for these resources is only good for the network to improve.
Why would miners need to agree on the soft limit? They don't have to. Those with the best resources will produce the bigger blocks. That's all.
Precisely.
You do know what you are describing is centralization and these bigger blocks will eventually make it impossible for me or you to run full nodes.
What I am describing is levelling up the game. Making it
You are so dumb.
There is no such thing as "good enough decentralization".
If I can't run a node because it costs several thousand dollars and 1GB/s bandwidth then Bitcoin is effectively worthless to me.
The only way to use Bitcoin in a truly trustless and private manner is by running a node.
Bitcoin is about monetary sovereignty, not depending on corporations, banking parasites and everyone else that can afford datacenters to maintain the network.
A PEER-TO-PEER NETWORK.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_good_enough
You are presenting a false dichotomy. If running a full node costs several thousand dollars and 1GB/s bandwidth the Bitcoin is worth a whole lot to a whole lot of other people. It being worthless to you is your call, not an absolute.
You don't need to run a full node, you might want to. I want bitcoin to totally replace cash. We both have our dreams
We could've saved a lot of time if you had told me up front you're with the gang that proposes nodes will eventually be run in decentralized datacenters.
FTFY
For anything else, there is an altcoin.
Decentralized datacenters
That was a rhetorical question.
The point is that every miners pick their limit and obviously each of them have different resources therefore it follows that they will never agree on some magical soft limit every one of them will enforce.
That's just straight up delusional.
Of course miners have different resources and letting them compete for these resources is only good for the network to improve.
Why would miners need to agree on the soft limit? They don't have to. Those with the best resources will produce the bigger blocks. That's all.
Precisely.
You do know what you are describing is centralization and these bigger blocks will eventually make it impossible for me or you to run full nodes.
What I am describing is levelling up the game. Making it
You are so dumb.
There is no such thing as "good enough decentralization".
If I can't run a node because it costs several thousand dollars and 1GB/s bandwidth then Bitcoin is effectively worthless to me.
The only way to use Bitcoin in a truly trustless and private manner is by running a node.
Bitcoin is about monetary sovereignty, not depending on corporations, banking parasites and everyone else that can afford datacenters to maintain the network.
A PEER-TO-PEER NETWORK.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_good_enough
You are presenting a false dichotomy. If running a full node costs several thousand dollars and 1GB/s bandwidth the Bitcoin is worth a whole lot to a whole lot of other people. It being worthless to you is your call, not an absolute.
You don't need to run a full node, you might want to. I want bitcoin to totally replace cash. We both have our dreams
We could've saved a lot of time if you had told me up front you're with the gang that proposes nodes will eventually be run in decentralized datacenters.
FTFY
For anything else, there is an altcoin.
Jump to: