Good post, and I think there is no need for alt chain at all
Just like someone pointed out, gold still works as a store of value and it seldom get moved once a year, bitcoin will work the same
People will abuse more and more transaction capacity, they will get wise and plan their transactions accordingly if the transaction becomes expensive. Today, Credit Card companies always charge you a fixed amount of dollar for cash withdraw, but that won't stop people from doing withdraw, they just withdraw as much as possible to reduce the fee. So does bitcoin, if the transaction becomes expensive, people will plan their transaction with bigger amount and reduce the frequency of transaction, problem solved
And due to the fact that fiat currency are still 99.9% mainstream, to replace fiat currency is totally impractical and unnecessary, they suit much better for daily small transaction, they are created to be spent
Bitcoin should function as the saving heaven for average people (retirement saving now get eaten by government and inflation), in current debt based monetary system, there is no other better alternative, even gold can not compete
Topic: there is no max block size problem (Read 1919 times)
In the future I think mining will be done by organizations that have a lot of transactions to process, and the incentive to mine will be the commerce those transactions enable. Whether they do it themselves, or in pools, or outsource it to dedicated mining companies is impossible to predict.
Could you elaborate on this? A few examples, maybe.Soon we might be able add a growing list of web businesses who deliver products and services to customers who can not access the legacy financial system. Any of that that commerce can't take place without Bitcoin creates an economic incentive for those businesses to mine (directly or otherwise).
If Bitcoin grows to the point at which huge companies like Walmart and McDonalds are depending on it they would spend money to keep the network operating, because it would be necessary to protect their revenue.
In the future I think mining will be done by organizations that have a lot of transactions to process, and the incentive to mine will be the commerce those transactions enable. Whether they do it themselves, or in pools, or outsource it to dedicated mining companies is impossible to predict.
Could you elaborate on this? A few examples, maybe. 
It's a package deal for me. I have 0 use for Bitcoin if it can't maintain its monetary rules and its no central authority feature.
Yes - this is exactly what I think too (so changing the software to allow increased #s of tx's isn't as important to me as keeping the system as decentralised as possible and keeping the 21M limit in place).
Bitcoin *needs* transactions to survive - but does it really need to compete with Paypal or the like?
I find it strange why this has become such a big issue recently (is all the fuss just because of SD?) - the software has survived with the "mining" part of it basically being removed (was there the same amount of fuss when that occurred?) and I don't see why the large tx issues can't also be handled by other external means (whether it is done through other chains or through Ripple or off chain tx's or a combination of various methods).
Maybe I am wrong but I really think that the main point of Bitcoin is it being a decentralised *store of wealth* rather being a transaction system designed to replace all others (i.e. does "digital gold" really *need* to be transacted hundreds of times per second and if so then why have 10 minute confirmation times?).
Maybe I am wrong but I really think that the main point of Bitcoin is it being a decentralised *store of wealth* rather being a transaction system designed to replace all others (i.e. does "digital gold" really *need* to be transacted hundreds of times per second and if so then why have 10 minute confirmation times?).
Actually the real value in Bitcoin arises from its use as a transaction system. If I just wanted to store wealth precious metals do this very well and will likely continue to do so regardless of whether Bitcoin succeeds or fails.
It's a package deal for me. I have 0 use for Bitcoin if it can't maintain its monetary rules and its no central authority feature.
Understood (although I think gold is an important metal in creating a lot of quality equipment) - I just think that if the *main* point of Bitcoin was just tx's then the *main reason* to be a miner would be to earn fees (and quite likely that will be how things come to pass down the track) so if we are going to wish for more and more tx's to be processed then I would not surprised to see the fees becoming >= Paypal's (in which case Bitcoin is *dead*).
We're in the bootstrapping phase right now so the incentives for mining are distorted by the block subsidy.In the future I think mining will be done by organizations that have a lot of transactions to process, and the incentive to mine will be the commerce those transactions enable. Whether they do it themselves, or in pools, or outsource it to dedicated mining companies is impossible to predict.
I don't think it would be worthless, but metals like copper are actually used to build useful things much more so than gold.
Understood (although I think gold is an important metal in creating a lot of quality equipment) - I just think that if the *main* point of Bitcoin was just tx's then the *main reason* to be a miner would be to earn fees (and quite likely that will be how things come to pass down the track) so if we are going to wish for more and more tx's to be processed then I would not surprised to see the fees becoming >= Paypal's (in which case Bitcoin is *dead*).
Sure - but how is it *worse* than gold right now (I think that gold is still considered about the best store of value and it is not at all an easy medium of exchange compared to Bitcoin as of today)?
Gold is also hoarded by central banks, and traded by firms that get to borrow play money from the Fed at negative real interest rates. How well would it do as a store of value without the support of government intervention?I don't think it would be worthless, but metals like copper are actually used to build useful things much more so than gold.
it was not my intention to insinuate such.
No worries - I think we are actually reading from the same page.
Bitcoin will never be a viable store of value in the long term if it's not first and foremost a medium of exchange. Trying to make it work the other way around is pushing on the string.
Sure - but how is it *worse* than gold right now (I think that gold is still considered about the best store of value and it is not at all an easy medium of exchange compared to Bitcoin as of today)?
i just want to set the important precident if you dont like it you should create your own and fix it there and never undermine the promises made by the protocol of a crypto currency. Those promises are sacred to some people, those people will flee to silver and gold if they start seeing rule changes occurring, even for the noblest of intentions.
Am not sure who you are addressing with this as I was not advocating *changing* anything at all (the promises are surely what the source code *is* at the moment and nothing more).
it was not my intention to insinuate such.
Bitcoin will never be a viable store of value in the long term if it's not first and foremost a medium of exchange. Trying to make it work the other way around is pushing on the string.
i just want to set the important precident if you dont like it you should create your own and fix it there and never undermine the promises made by the protocol of a crypto currency. Those promises are sacred to some people, those people will flee to silver and gold if they start seeing rule changes occurring, even for the noblest of intentions.
Am not sure who you are addressing with this as I was not advocating *changing* anything at all (the promises are surely what the source code *is* at the moment and nothing more).
I find it strange why this has become such a big issue recently (is all the fuss just because of SD?) - the software has survived with the "mining" part of it basically being removed (was there the same amount of fuss when that occurred?) and I don't see why the large tx issues can't also be handled by other external means (whether it is done through other chains or through Ripple or off chain tx's or a combination of various methods).
Maybe I am wrong but I really think that the main point of Bitcoin is it being a decentralised *store of wealth* rather being a transaction system designed to replace all others (i.e. does "digital gold" really *need* to be transacted hundreds of times per second and if so then why have 10 minute confirmation times?).
Maybe I am wrong but I really think that the main point of Bitcoin is it being a decentralised *store of wealth* rather being a transaction system designed to replace all others (i.e. does "digital gold" really *need* to be transacted hundreds of times per second and if so then why have 10 minute confirmation times?).
Actually the real value in Bitcoin arises from its use as a transaction system. If I just wanted to store wealth precious metals do this very well and will likely continue to do so regardless of whether Bitcoin succeeds or fails.
you underestimate bitcoins utility as a store of value. silver can not be stored inside of ones brain.
Actually the real value in Bitcoin arises from its use as a transaction system. If I just wanted to store wealth precious metals do this very well and will likely continue to do so regardless of whether Bitcoin succeeds or fails.
Whilst I do agree that tx's are important (without it the hashing power protecting the network would eventually disappear) I don't think it is really so easy to store precious metals in your own home (and I don't trust anyone else to store them for me).
Also I have seen various *fake gold bars* in recent press releases that came from extremely reputable sellers (whereas I know I can *trust* the value of a Bitcoin).
I find it strange why this has become such a big issue recently (is all the fuss just because of SD?) - the software has survived with the "mining" part of it basically being removed (was there the same amount of fuss when that occurred?) and I don't see why the large tx issues can't also be handled by other external means (whether it is done through other chains or through Ripple or off chain tx's or a combination of various methods).
Maybe I am wrong but I really think that the main point of Bitcoin is it being a decentralised *store of wealth* rather being a transaction system designed to replace all others (i.e. does "digital gold" really *need* to be transacted hundreds of times per second and if so then why have 10 minute confirmation times?).
Maybe I am wrong but I really think that the main point of Bitcoin is it being a decentralised *store of wealth* rather being a transaction system designed to replace all others (i.e. does "digital gold" really *need* to be transacted hundreds of times per second and if so then why have 10 minute confirmation times?).
i just want to set the important precident if you dont like it you should create your own and fix it there and never undermine the promises made by the protocol of a crypto currency. Those promises are sacred to some people, those people will flee to silver and gold if they start seeing rule changes occurring, even for the noblest of intentions.
I find it strange why this has become such a big issue recently (is all the fuss just because of SD?) - the software has survived with the "mining" part of it basically being removed (was there the same amount of fuss when that occurred?) and I don't see why the large tx issues can't also be handled by other external means (whether it is done through other chains or through Ripple or off chain tx's or a combination of various methods).
Maybe I am wrong but I really think that the main point of Bitcoin is it being a decentralised *store of wealth* rather being a transaction system designed to replace all others (i.e. does "digital gold" really *need* to be transacted hundreds of times per second and if so then why have 10 minute confirmation times?).
Maybe I am wrong but I really think that the main point of Bitcoin is it being a decentralised *store of wealth* rather being a transaction system designed to replace all others (i.e. does "digital gold" really *need* to be transacted hundreds of times per second and if so then why have 10 minute confirmation times?).
Actually the real value in Bitcoin arises from its use as a transaction system. If I just wanted to store wealth precious metals do this very well and will likely continue to do so regardless of whether Bitcoin succeeds or fails.
I find it strange why this has become such a big issue recently (is all the fuss just because of SD?) - the software has survived with the "mining" part of it basically being removed (was there the same amount of fuss when that occurred?) and I don't see why the large tx issues can't also be handled by other external means (whether it is done through other chains or through Ripple or off chain tx's or a combination of various methods).
Maybe I am wrong but I really think that the main point of Bitcoin is it being a decentralised *store of wealth* rather being a transaction system designed to replace all others (i.e. does "digital gold" really *need* to be transacted hundreds of times per second and if so then why have 10 minute confirmation times?).
Maybe I am wrong but I really think that the main point of Bitcoin is it being a decentralised *store of wealth* rather being a transaction system designed to replace all others (i.e. does "digital gold" really *need* to be transacted hundreds of times per second and if so then why have 10 minute confirmation times?).
I skimmed through, so excuse me if I missed it, but:
By introducing additional blockchains, you have in effect increased processing power of the overall system. Might as well increase (or dynamically adjust) the block size limit to achieve the same.
By introducing additional blockchains, you have in effect increased processing power of the overall system. Might as well increase (or dynamically adjust) the block size limit to achieve the same.
except it cant be done by only increasing the block size. Atleast not without being willing to accept massive levels of centralization (i.e. bitcoin nodes with their own physical infrastructure connecting them). If you allow the blocks to become too large than people with regular internet connections begin to become unable to participate because they can not download the blockchain as quickly as is necessary to keep up with real time. This limit is reached way before any sizable portion of the population become active participants in the market.
since we must inevitably accept alternative blockchains why trade any level of centralization at all in favor of a higher number of transactions being possible on the main chain, lets just accept it with out increasing the level of centralization at all. Someone go make bitcoin2 with 2mb blocks or 10mb blocks w/e. Why shake anyone faith in the promise that the fundamental rules of bitcoin will not be changed, sure i understand that some would not feel this way but many also would.
I skimmed through, so excuse me if I missed it, but:
By introducing additional blockchains, you have in effect increased processing power of the overall system. Might as well increase (or dynamically adjust) the block size limit to achieve the same.
By introducing additional blockchains, you have in effect increased processing power of the overall system. Might as well increase (or dynamically adjust) the block size limit to achieve the same.
Jump to: