Topic: Roger Ver and blocksize (Read 8128 times)

It doesnt matter someone is paying for this. You can have free bank account and transaction fees. Those who dont put much time how to choose free bank account service, basically pays all the fees for you. The only downside is you still hold fiat, which is not transparent currency (no public ledger availabe) so creating money out of nothing is very likely by those who controls the ledger.

With Bitcoin, miners choose what fees are acceptable to include your transaction. But current tiny block size was set long ago, technology improved since then.

I am not sure how bigger blocks lead to more users? It will lead to a better and faster block finding which will speed up transactions.
If the blocks are full it can take hours to get a transaction being confirmed.

That argument doesn't really have a solid standing ground. Remember the times when the average block size was much lower, i.e. there was a lot of room for transactions (and users)? So why didn't the number of nodes increase (there are surely a lot of new users)?

The wording "fix of the lightning network" is bad and doesn't make sense. Lightning is not a centralized system.

If blocks were bigger, there could be more users, which would cause bitcoin to be even more decentralized.  With blocks small and the "fix" of the lightning network (which is a centralized off-chain system) bitcoin becomes more centralized.

Bitcoin is pretty cheap considering what it offers. It's unfortunate that some are just greedy and want to rush user adoption as soon as possible. What we should be doing is continue developing a very secure and resistant system (the less decentralized it is, the less resistant it is) that was supposed to help us move away from the corrupt traditional system (money out of thin air).

People really need to stop listening to him when it comes to technicalities.

This is somewhat of an issue right now, and this makes one wonder why anyone in their right mind would propose changes that would give the miners even more control (e.g. control the block size limit).

Anyway the real elephant in the room is centralization: https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/4s5ar0/the_top_5_pools_all_chinese_now_have_824_of_the/

This is disheartening.

Nothing is free. I agree with that. The banks or the Paypal charge us indirectly. But if I do not have to pay to transfer money, I fee good.

Nothing is really free. The banks' networks and computers cost money to operate and someone somewhere is paying for it and the costs will eventually be passed back to you in one form or another.

Bitcoin is censorship resistant super money. You got to pay for this flight.

In the UK, you can send money to other people for free, even you and the person receiving the funds are with different banks.

This guy is totally out to lunch.
https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/4rim0c/roger_ver_on_twitter_my_career_began_in_1999_by/d51f0ee

Yeah, until they travel accross Carltons land,



(Roger Ver did not help in the making of this post.)

Well said. I think the current breed of corporate fascists operate on a level of their own, complete with a different set of rules and morals.

There's always a gap between theory and practice. Personally I don't believe greed is good. I don't think everything should be a market. I regard Rand's philosophy as second-rate Nietzschean rehash. But I do have hope for optimists who preach economic freedom. As you say, it's an inclusive community that seeks to build wealth together.



 

Ok, except I debunked that idea; the majority of people would adopt "live and let live" on a pragmatic basis, not "shoot every possible varmint into smithereens" on a vindictive basis.

 

Again, I'm not sure you're actually reading much about anarchist/libertarian philosophy; there are no taxes, no mandated regulation and no static, aristocratic elite (although there will of course be landscape of relative winners and losers that would frequently change)


You're identifying an important theme/issue there; the crossover between libertarianism and corporate fascism. Genuine anarchism/libertariansim is the only credible ideological threat to the establishment today, and so the propagandists that infiltrate the "liberty movement" are often the most subtle and subsequently the most accomplished (I used to check people like Jeffrey Tucker, Walter Block, Roger Ver, Adam Kokesh etc for their seemingly credible views on the libertarian outlook, but the behaviour of those people over time has become more and more suspicious).

Think about it: fascists can easily portray themselves as libertarians, justifying it by claiming that subjugating the population is what's needed to secure their personal freedom. "I'm free to literally do as I please. Oh, so you guys are saying you're being oppressed by my freedom? That'll be the price of liberty, huh?!"

Real libertarians/anarchists take both the individualist view and do everything possible to help as many other people secure the same for themselves (because having everyone as strong as possible, but also mutually supportive, is the most effective way of preventing elites getting/retaining too much power). To me, that's what promoting and supporting Bitcoin is all about: securing freedom for myself and for everyone else. I don't want to be "free" with a bunch of destitute people outside my front porch, it's no different to being a neo-fascist, just as you essentially say.

Point taken. Either way it's a problem, but I wouldn't be in favor of creating even more overlapping jurisdictions, boundaries, borders, checkpoints, and toll booths, which is what this hypothetical hyper-privatized world would likely devolve into...

Personally I don't see that much difference between the Randian utopian society and the current system. Sure, taxes suck, it's hard to run a business due to excessive regulation, and the elite hold all of the cards.  Remember that Alan Greenspan, Mark Cuban, Travis Kalanick, Peter Thiel, etc. are all Randians. These are some of the biggest douchebags on the planet, tremendously powerful and rich, and hugely influential on US policy.

The only place the Randos shine is their foreign policy IMHO. Ron Paul is alone in speaking the truth there.

You're telling me that problem doesn't exist now? There exists 2 concepts that render your argument fallacious: self interest and pragmatism.

Imagine seeing a helicopter flying over your residence (one of thousands of "jurisdictions" as you put it) in a future Randian "nightmare": what sort of dickhead is going to get on the comms to said chopper, threatening missile attack if they don't pay the passage tithe? I suspect you would (quite reasonably) think: "Live and let live, one day, I may need to fly over this guy's house also". And maybe those dickheads will exist, but, guess what? Those dickheads exist now anyway, they're called military air traffic control.

At least in the supposed nightmare scenario, such a thing as safe zones would/could exist for aircraft or other transport. Right now, it's either pay the extortion fee, get killed by military aircraft, or spend your life confined to just the one tax farm with the rest of the cattle.

Sorry to kick off the Randian debate again, but I'll bite.

I suppose a world where everything was public property would be a world with no governance, borders, or nation-states? Well then, maybe! See what I did there?  You were going for the Marxist gulag argument, admit it.

I didn't mention anything about roads to the Rand-troll. All I asked him was "How will you travel anywhere, when you'll need permission to cross thousands of individual jurisdictions?"

ok im guessing your not understanding the tree analogy..

lets say currency meant "population"
within the "population" there were many categories people
africans were the diamonds
new yorkers were the money
Japan was the bearer bonds
saudi-arabia was the gold
amsterdam was sex (if you dont think sex is a currency you have never been married or met a girl in the bar looking for free drinks)

money was just one small group of people..
but you can still have currency even if you take away certain people.

all that would happen is people would need to change how they transact with each other because they cant use new yorkers anymore

EG imagine an apocolypse.. bank notes are meaningless.. now the currency is food, guns, fuel and sex..  
bartering does not need "money" the swap of one good for another good..

money was created as an equilibrium to reduce debate about 'why should 1 chicken be worth two bunches of carrots' on one day but different the next day, or even the same day but with a different person.

the reliance on money as a lazy way to stabilize "value" of assets has inflated peoples perceptions of how important "money" is. and now people dont even care about the assets but only care about the money.

but that does not mean that bitcoin should become "money", but instead to let people realise there is an alternative to making payments and trading that is not "money"

anyway this topic has meandered totally offtopic from the roger verr thing

no offense, but it is the other people who are confusing the terms constantly here

The point here of course is that currency and  money are very closely connected. It is some very stupid point, where bitcoin community started to distinguish between money and currency, where currency has to be something without value of something like that (I read somewhere explanation like that, not sure if it fits your explanation with trees and branches). There is no money without currency and there is no currency without money. It does not matter if it is fiat or what. It is 2 sides of the same coin

Currency is representation of money (of the symbol of money). Used to be something physical like gold or paper, starting with computers b4 btc, currency can be just numbers.

I have MsC in macroeconomics. Not that it is a useful thing. But up and there it is.

Yes indeed, if every shitcoin now is called cryptocurrency, then it is not a currency, until it represents money. The term cryptocurrency is unlucky, because it associates a currency. (Yes, cryptocurrencies flow as current, but the term currency is simply used for ages for money only that flow).

an asset currency is LESS restricting than a monetary currency. and im glad of that. for the same reason you are.


stop trying to confuse the word currency with the word money..
put it this way currency is the stump of a tree, it then branches out.. each branch goes in different directions.
some directions produce fruit(assets) some branches produce leaves to help grow(investment bonds) some branches can be used by anyone for other reasons..

"money" is not the stump of the tree along with "currency".. "money" is just a side branch

as for the storage of value VS unit of account.. its all about perception. i agree .. average joe bloggs doesnt know the difference so they blindly trust that the "promise" has meaning and thus that trust translates into the banknote itself being the store.. rather than the bank of england itself.