How can you try to own Bitcoin? To hijack it from the people? To rule it?
Fuck you Roger Ver! I m sure most of the small miners would rather move to something else then let these assholes rule crypto.
Topic: SHOCKING: BU chief scientist: "We need Bitcoin's inflation rate to be non-zero" (Read 1831 times)
April 14, 2017, 12:03:41 AM
April 13, 2017, 01:35:10 PM
Bitcoin Unlimited is digging its own grave with every new info they release.
They want to turn Bitcoin into some kind of network with superior governance, introduce emergence consensus and create inflation?
FFS! If they want to do this then please, isn't it better create their own altcoin? Do it exactly the same way ZClassic done!
Copy the base code, introduce their own rules, and every pool supporting BU, please go mine that new alt. Just leave Bitcoin alone.
They want to turn Bitcoin into some kind of network with superior governance, introduce emergence consensus and create inflation?
FFS! If they want to do this then please, isn't it better create their own altcoin? Do it exactly the same way ZClassic done!
Copy the base code, introduce their own rules, and every pool supporting BU, please go mine that new alt. Just leave Bitcoin alone.
The problem is that the value of the new altcoin would not be the same as BTC. The trick is getting BTC to change and hoping the value remain stable. This is a huge gamble.
March 25, 2017, 05:54:59 AM
Inflation rate has always been non-zero.
Every 10 minutes new coins enter circulation, increasing supply of coins is the definition of inflation.
That's not what this is about.Every 10 minutes new coins enter circulation, increasing supply of coins is the definition of inflation.
I was trying to point out click-baitness of the title, which tricks new users into thinking Bitcoin is not inflationary today.
However, it is true that if you need to reward people by organizing a competitive lottery for maintaining consensus, then tail emission is the only potential solution if you want a fluid system. The reason is that spontaneous fees are never a good way, because OR you have to need scarcity of transactions (like bitcoin is having now), which leads to a "reserve currency" status of the system ; OR you will have a fluid system with so small fees that the system becomes unsafe or unstable and cannot reach consensus.
The BU proposal that network lag is going to lead to self-regulation is stupid, because the only network regulation you will obtain is a fully blocked network. In fact, you need tail emission if you are to reward those securing the system. Fees alone is not stable.
March 25, 2017, 05:43:56 AM
Inflation rate has always been non-zero.
Every 10 minutes new coins enter circulation, increasing supply of coins is the definition of inflation.
That's not what this is about.Every 10 minutes new coins enter circulation, increasing supply of coins is the definition of inflation.
I was trying to point out click-baitness of the title, which tricks new users into thinking Bitcoin is not inflationary today.
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1008
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
March 24, 2017, 10:38:31 PM
OP, you are spinning this and putting words in Peter's mouth.
What he said is when the mining reward goes to 0 (in the year 2140),, its unclear what happens with the natural fee market.
No one in the BU camp is saying "we need to change the social contract and have more than 21M coins" which is what
you are implying.
Bitcoin will have a non-zero inflation rate for the next 120 years. And we could always decide to re-introduce the protocol enforced limit at that time if no other solution
is available.
What he said is when the mining reward goes to 0 (in the year 2140),, its unclear what happens with the natural fee market.
No one in the BU camp is saying "we need to change the social contract and have more than 21M coins" which is what
you are implying.
Bitcoin will have a non-zero inflation rate for the next 120 years. And we could always decide to re-introduce the protocol enforced limit at that time if no other solution
is available.
protocols solidify with time, pretty sure 120 years from now the protocol rules are set in stone otherwise bitcoin would be a failure as a store of wealth
this implies exactly what it implies. anything but certain 21 million limit coin is untolerable.
Agree. Something else will have to be done in 120 years about the blocksize/fees.
Again, too stupid to realize how psychology works when investing.
The whole trust in bitcoin as a solid store of wealth is destroyed by the very second BUcoin takes over with his EC abomination.
Do you have an actual argument of substance against EC, other than hurling insults ('too stupid') and hyperboles ('abomination')?
How will it destroy trust? All it does is allow miners to freely decide what size blocks should be on the blockchain. That's literally
the only property of Bitcoin that it affects.
March 24, 2017, 10:35:46 PM
OP, you are spinning this and putting words in Peter's mouth.
What he said is when the mining reward goes to 0 (in the year 2140),, its unclear what happens with the natural fee market.
No one in the BU camp is saying "we need to change the social contract and have more than 21M coins" which is what
you are implying.
Bitcoin will have a non-zero inflation rate for the next 120 years. And we could always decide to re-introduce the protocol enforced limit at that time if no other solution
is available.
What he said is when the mining reward goes to 0 (in the year 2140),, its unclear what happens with the natural fee market.
No one in the BU camp is saying "we need to change the social contract and have more than 21M coins" which is what
you are implying.
Bitcoin will have a non-zero inflation rate for the next 120 years. And we could always decide to re-introduce the protocol enforced limit at that time if no other solution
is available.
protocols solidify with time, pretty sure 120 years from now the protocol rules are set in stone otherwise bitcoin would be a failure as a store of wealth
this implies exactly what it implies. anything but certain 21 million limit coin is untolerable.
Agree. Something else will have to be done in 120 years about the blocksize/fees.
Again, too stupid to realize how psychology works when investing.
The whole trust in bitcoin as a solid store of wealth is destroyed by the very second BUcoin takes over with his EC abomination.
March 24, 2017, 10:31:25 PM
Seems like (Chinese) miners getting very worried about 6.25 BTC reward in 3 years, then 3.125 BTC looming in 7 years, they probably can't see viable financial future unless blocks get much bigger (more transactions, more fees) so are entertaining other ideas from all comers, sane or insane. Miner centralization can apparently lead to the tail wagging the dog, for awhile anyway.
Yes,they are very much worried about their mining rewards in future.Only for that reason, they need block size to be increased so that they can get more fees.BU supporters are just taking advantage of this situation. 
March 24, 2017, 06:11:14 PM
bily bob zorton
you forget
adamback CEO
gmaxwell CTO
hypocrite
as for other hypocrites who pretend to be defending bitcoin decentralisation and "free market"
here is carlton before he became a blockstream defender
here is carlton at the same month transitioning to being a blockstream defender
And you have to. This area (the dev team) is where the decentralisation paradigm loses its usefullness.
People keep making the argument: "Decentralise everything! Let the users decide on difficult technical problems!"
Software Development teams can only be a small number of individuals, with a preferably smaller number of members with commit access to the project. The fact that we have a really amiable, pragmatic guy in that role right now has been consistently good for Bitcoin; Wladimir van der Laan is exactly the type of leader I like.
and just as he transitions to be a blockstream defender
and then when he is full on centralist blockstream defender. and no longer bitcoin decentralised defender
revealing that blockstream want their TIER network where devs control bitcoin
and as segwit is now revealing. that blockstream want to be the upstream filters of their TIER network [blockstream segwit Fibre] to totally dominate not just proposals. but the users control. leaving the rest of the network in a cess pool of prunned, spv, witness stripped nodes that cant sync with each other and are reliant on blockstream nodes.
you forget
adamback CEO
gmaxwell CTO
hypocrite
as for other hypocrites who pretend to be defending bitcoin decentralisation and "free market"
here is carlton before he became a blockstream defender
Dynamic resizing is the obvious compromise between the camps. Everyone can get what they claim to want from it, without having to compromise either.
The market could even try out bigger blocks, decide it doesn't work, try the alternative, dislike that more than bigger blocks, and then revert to some compromoise blocksize. Y'know, it's almost as if the free market works better than central planning...
The market could even try out bigger blocks, decide it doesn't work, try the alternative, dislike that more than bigger blocks, and then revert to some compromoise blocksize. Y'know, it's almost as if the free market works better than central planning...
That's similar to my position also. I support an algorithmically determined blocksize limit, but sadly we don't have any complete proposals yet.
here is carlton at the same month transitioning to being a blockstream defender
If I could pick a Bitcoin dictator, I'd pick Szabo.
And you have to. This area (the dev team) is where the decentralisation paradigm loses its usefullness.
People keep making the argument: "Decentralise everything! Let the users decide on difficult technical problems!"
Software Development teams can only be a small number of individuals, with a preferably smaller number of members with commit access to the project. The fact that we have a really amiable, pragmatic guy in that role right now has been consistently good for Bitcoin; Wladimir van der Laan is exactly the type of leader I like.
and just as he transitions to be a blockstream defender
Any arguments that their plans to monetise aren't public are not credible. Plans are public and benign to the interest of the stakeholders. Known shills in this thread claim otherwise when it has been explained to them already.
Any arguments that suggest this centralises the dev team further are not credible. It's centralised now, it was centralised before, and it will be centralised under any other management. That's how the development process works.
However, any arguments that Blockstream are deficient in their design ideas are those that I am willing to entertain. I'm not as familiar with their proposal as I could be, still haven't read it in full. But if Blockstream ever appear to be against the spirit of Bitcoin, I will not favour their solution, or anything that promotes it.
Superficially at least, Blockstream satisfies that basic stipulation; Blockstream's proposals thus far only enhance Bitcoin. We will have wait to see if that's what materialises.
Any arguments that suggest this centralises the dev team further are not credible. It's centralised now, it was centralised before, and it will be centralised under any other management. That's how the development process works.
However, any arguments that Blockstream are deficient in their design ideas are those that I am willing to entertain. I'm not as familiar with their proposal as I could be, still haven't read it in full. But if Blockstream ever appear to be against the spirit of Bitcoin, I will not favour their solution, or anything that promotes it.
Superficially at least, Blockstream satisfies that basic stipulation; Blockstream's proposals thus far only enhance Bitcoin. We will have wait to see if that's what materialises.
and then when he is full on centralist blockstream defender. and no longer bitcoin decentralised defender
revealing that blockstream want their TIER network where devs control bitcoin
It's tiered. 3 tiers.
Tier 1 is the development team
Tier 2 is the miners.
Tier 3 is the users.
Tier 1 is the development team
Tier 2 is the miners.
Tier 3 is the users.
and as segwit is now revealing. that blockstream want to be the upstream filters of their TIER network [blockstream segwit Fibre] to totally dominate not just proposals. but the users control. leaving the rest of the network in a cess pool of prunned, spv, witness stripped nodes that cant sync with each other and are reliant on blockstream nodes.
March 24, 2017, 04:52:14 PM
You must be mad, but that's the second time you've expressed tacit support for BitcoinEC.
1. Yet again, the Bitcoin code repo becomes controlled by some dubious outsider
2. As you state EC is a hard-fork-every-Tueday disaster waiting to happen
Take a look at it from a different perspective. Given only two possibilities, a pool running Bitcoin Unlimited and a pool running BitcoinEC. The latter, signalling for Segwit (and running a Segwit compatible implementation), wouldn't it be *fair* to say that it is 'much better' than the former option? That's what my statement was about.1. Yet again, the Bitcoin code repo becomes controlled by some dubious outsider
2. As you state EC is a hard-fork-every-Tueday disaster waiting to happen
Why on earth would you consider something like that, especially when the Core team are likely going to activate Segwit a different way
UASF? I'm not going to agree that it is 'likely' just yet. I did see the BIP for it. March 24, 2017, 04:40:22 PM
Hell, that's definitely a write-off now. I thought that there might be some use for BU and it could have some features that would prove to be useful, but it looks like at best the technology can be used and the creators will have to be discarded. Something like this is completely insane for something like Bitcoin, and just results in centralization of what was made to escape centralization.
Absolutely insane, they might have had a thing going for them but they're retarded so I don't care about what they say anymore.
Absolutely insane, they might have had a thing going for them but they're retarded so I don't care about what they say anymore.
March 24, 2017, 04:36:19 PM
They've regrouped to BitcoinEC already though. jonald's already laying the groundwork.
I'm inclined to say that BitcoinEC is much better, considering that we'd get Segwit sooner. It doesn't help the 'emergent disaster' though.You must be mad, but that's the second time you've expressed tacit support for BitcoinEC.
1. Yet again, the Bitcoin code repo becomes controlled by some dubious outsider
2. As you state EC is a hard-fork-every-Tueday disaster waiting to happen
Why on earth would you consider something like that, especially when the Core team are likely going to activate Segwit a different way
March 24, 2017, 04:31:44 PM
Bitcoin Unlimited is digging its own grave with every new info they release.
They want to turn Bitcoin into some kind of network with superior governance, introduce emergence consensus and create inflation?
FFS! If they want to do this then please, isn't it better create their own altcoin? Do it exactly the same way ZClassic done!
Copy the base code, introduce their own rules, and every pool supporting BU, please go mine that new alt. Just leave Bitcoin alone.
They want to turn Bitcoin into some kind of network with superior governance, introduce emergence consensus and create inflation?
FFS! If they want to do this then please, isn't it better create their own altcoin? Do it exactly the same way ZClassic done!
Copy the base code, introduce their own rules, and every pool supporting BU, please go mine that new alt. Just leave Bitcoin alone.
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1008
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
March 24, 2017, 04:20:10 PM
They've regrouped to BitcoinEC already though. jonald's already laying the groundwork.
I'm inclined to say that BitcoinEC is much better, considering that we'd get Segwit sooner. It doesn't help the 'emergent disaster' though.laying the groundwork lol... my ego would love to think its that important. are we really influencing anyone's opinion here?
It's not for lack of trying. You've made more new threads in the past week than I have in 6 years.
yeah a serious bitcointalk binge... i gotta lay off lol..
March 24, 2017, 04:07:14 PM
They've regrouped to BitcoinEC already though. jonald's already laying the groundwork.
I'm inclined to say that BitcoinEC is much better, considering that we'd get Segwit sooner. It doesn't help the 'emergent disaster' though.laying the groundwork lol... my ego would love to think its that important. are we really influencing anyone's opinion here?
It's not for lack of trying. You've made more new threads in the past week than I have in 6 years.
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1008
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
March 24, 2017, 04:03:51 PM
They've regrouped to BitcoinEC already though. jonald's already laying the groundwork.
I'm inclined to say that BitcoinEC is much better, considering that we'd get Segwit sooner. It doesn't help the 'emergent disaster' though.laying the groundwork lol... my ego would love to think its that important. are we really influencing anyone's opinion here?
March 24, 2017, 03:58:49 PM
They've regrouped to BitcoinEC already though. jonald's already laying the groundwork.
I'm inclined to say that BitcoinEC is much better, considering that we'd get Segwit sooner. It doesn't help the 'emergent disaster' though.They'll desperately cling to the falsehoods ("community is and always was in favour of blocksize hard forks" etc) they've tried to argue with, just as they've done with BU this time around
Yes! This is an extremely false statement considering that BTU is only supporter by a minority of users.Inflation rate has always been non-zero.
Every 10 minutes new coins enter circulation, increasing supply of coins is the definition of inflation.
That's not what this is about.Every 10 minutes new coins enter circulation, increasing supply of coins is the definition of inflation.
Yeah, that does it for me..
I could never in a million years support that point 3..
No way..
It baffles me how anyone could support them at this point. I could never in a million years support that point 3..
No way..
March 24, 2017, 02:49:22 PM
Seems like (Chinese) miners getting very worried about 6.25 BTC reward in 3 years, then 3.125 BTC looming in 7 years, they probably can't see viable financial future unless blocks get much bigger (more transactions, more fees) so are entertaining other ideas from all comers, sane or insane. Miner centralization can apparently lead to the tail wagging the dog, for awhile anyway.
Miners want to centralize the Bitcoin Network Just because They want more profits. That's incredibly insane. While they're busy signalling their support for BUcoin centralization plan, They forgot the fact that They're not the only important people. If the users and the community stops using bitcoin. Then It'll all be for nothing.
For me, Miners are the real problem here.
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1008
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
March 24, 2017, 02:43:52 PM
OP, you are spinning this and putting words in Peter's mouth.
What he said is when the mining reward goes to 0 (in the year 2140),, its unclear what happens with the natural fee market.
No one in the BU camp is saying "we need to change the social contract and have more than 21M coins" which is what
you are implying.
Bitcoin will have a non-zero inflation rate for the next 120 years. And we could always decide to re-introduce the protocol enforced limit at that time if no other solution
is available.
What he said is when the mining reward goes to 0 (in the year 2140),, its unclear what happens with the natural fee market.
No one in the BU camp is saying "we need to change the social contract and have more than 21M coins" which is what
you are implying.
Bitcoin will have a non-zero inflation rate for the next 120 years. And we could always decide to re-introduce the protocol enforced limit at that time if no other solution
is available.
protocols solidify with time, pretty sure 120 years from now the protocol rules are set in stone otherwise bitcoin would be a failure as a store of wealth
this implies exactly what it implies. anything but certain 21 million limit coin is untolerable.
Agree. Something else will have to be done in 120 years about the blocksize/fees.
March 24, 2017, 02:35:35 PM
OP, you are spinning this and putting words in Peter's mouth.
What he said is when the mining reward goes to 0 (in the year 2140),, its unclear what happens with the natural fee market.
No one in the BU camp is saying "we need to change the social contract and have more than 21M coins" which is what
you are implying.
Bitcoin will have a non-zero inflation rate for the next 120 years. And we could always decide to re-introduce the protocol enforced limit at that time if no other solution
is available.
What he said is when the mining reward goes to 0 (in the year 2140),, its unclear what happens with the natural fee market.
No one in the BU camp is saying "we need to change the social contract and have more than 21M coins" which is what
you are implying.
Bitcoin will have a non-zero inflation rate for the next 120 years. And we could always decide to re-introduce the protocol enforced limit at that time if no other solution
is available.
protocols solidify with time, pretty sure 120 years from now the protocol rules are set in stone otherwise bitcoin would be a failure as a store of wealth
this implies exactly what it implies. anything but certain 21 million limit coin is untolerable.
not to mention bu mechanism profits even more from mining pool centralization
whole thing is trash. and in 120 years bu devs would have killed bitcoin already anyway.
March 24, 2017, 02:30:28 PM
Peter R charlatan seems more likely to be a government shill as we've speculated the first time he showed up on a Bitcoin conference. He looked phony from day.
BTU recap:
1) Emergent consensus -> more power to the miners -> more centralization.
2) President of BTU & BTU federation.
3) Inflation non-zero, a.k.a. remove the 21 million limit.
Whoever doesn't see something *seriously* wrong here, especially in point 3, you need to get a 'reality check'. If anything is going to kill Bitcoin (from this list), then it is most certainly point 3.
BTU recap:
1) Emergent consensus -> more power to the miners -> more centralization.
2) President of BTU & BTU federation.
3) Inflation non-zero, a.k.a. remove the 21 million limit.
Whoever doesn't see something *seriously* wrong here, especially in point 3, you need to get a 'reality check'. If anything is going to kill Bitcoin (from this list), then it is most certainly point 3.
Yeah, that does it for me..
I could never in a million years support that point 3..
No way..
Jump to: