Topic: ToominCoin aka "Bitcoin_Classic" #R3KT - page 76. (Read 157137 times)

>noted experts
>LukeJr
Ahahahahaha

No thinblock BIP = no thinblocks.  You are welcome to go deep diving into the esoteric specifics of why thinblocks aren't the best solution, but don't spread lies about how 'they were rejected because bandwidth doesn't matter.'

You offer no evidence supporting the assertion that Bitcoin's usefulness is "already declining."  The market says you are wrong about that.

Your personal anecdotes about banksters are not relevant.  VC/fintech investment in BTC is exploding; Hearn's R3 consortium is going hard.

And here's the thing that really makes you look clueless: USAA is now offering Coinbase integration on all customer accounts.

As for my signature, it's not *me* telling people what Bitcoin is/isn't but rather three noted experts stating the facts.  Sorry if that hurts your butt because you think you understand Bitcoin better than Hal Finney.   

So, why then? On r/bitcoin several core devs played it down exactly of this reason. That it is not integrated and there are no plans to integrate it while it is available and working can be considered as a refusement to prepare bitcoin for scaling.


Yes. Just yes. Bitcoin is usefull and I wish it to stay this. But it's usefullness is already declining. It needs more time to use it privately.


Are you talking with banksters? I do. They don't even think about it. Bitcoin is not on the way to become a reserve currency. In fact it is far away from crossing the point where it has any worth beside the expectation it will be used as a payment system.

Beside all this - your signature is telling a lot about your mindframe. You seem to want very much to tell people what bitcoin is - and what it is not.

Bitcoin is, and will be, different things, for different people, in different time/space co-ordinates.

It cannot be defined as "e-cash", "decentralized paypal", "settlement network", "digital gold", "platform for blockchain-based apps" etc etc, because all these depend heavily on things that are dependent on time and space conditions.

At 3tx/s, one would say bitcoin can only be a settlement network or digital gold. However, due to low adoption right now, and for the previous 7 years, it can ...buy your coffee (ignoring double spending for a practical 0-conf payment). Fees like 2-3 cents don't register and are certainly not "settlement-network" level.

Could this change in 2-3-5 years if, say, we have a technological bottleneck in terms of scaling? yes it could.

Could this change AGAIN in 10-20 years, as tx/s capacity is in the tens of thousands/sec, allowing much more things than previously possible? yes it could

Thinblocks weren't accepted by core for reasons besides "bandwidth is no issue."  Is there even a thinblock BIP under consideration?

Bitcoin is already useful, right now.  You may stop fretting and pouting about that.  Bitcoin is on a trajectory to become a reserve currency.

Did you read the two statements from Hal and davout?  Did you learn anything from them?  If you did, it isn't obvious.  You need more clues!  Or maybe you just need less misinformation.  Try staying away from /r/btc.  It's a hotbed of lies, conspiracy theories, and other forms of agitprop.

Latest news was that bandwith is no issue. That was why thinblocks was not accepted by core.


What?

You mean, we don't need to make bitcoin usefull now, because it will be a reserve currency?

Really?

To put it in touch with finney's words: Maybe, maybe bitcoin will be a meta-currency some day, and maybe the transaction volume will be too big to be processed onchain. I'm not sure, but maybe -- someday -- but not now. The way we are routing now is the way to make sure bitcoin will never be anything like this.

Bandwidth (throughput+latency) is much bigger issue than HDD storage.

If Bitcoin becomes a new reserve currency, it will be about as useful to small people as gold (IE not for everyday coffee purchases).

You are new here, so please review these two statements before spending more time worrying about your false 'can't use vs. can't host' dilemma:

The Winkelvii definitely grok the ethos.  Everyone should use Gemini or Kraken instead of Coinbase and Circle.

Supporting CoinbaseCoin only makes sense if you don't understand (or fear/resent) how the property of antifragility emerges from Bitcoin's diverse/diffuse/defensible/resilient network.

True words.
This reminds much of a story Trace Mayer once told. He was having dinner with Gregory Maxwell, Adam Back and Gavin Andresen.
During this dinner Trace asked the threee why they would hire Bitcoin.
Maxwell and Back said moneytary sovereignty.For that decentralisation is the most valuable good we have and are not allowed to lose.
Andresen however answered when he makes a payment he feels good.

What's worse?

Small people can't host bitcoin - or small people can't use bitcoin?

Do you dream of a world where every poor man can proudly spend his hdd to host a payment network only the rich can use?

Logic is a finite ressource, and not every brain is a host of knowledge. Think for yourself!

Edit: answering this, too


Please, apply some logic. If we let blocks grow, it doesn't mean they will grow to a size only a datacentre can host. Two posts earlier you told me that there is not enough demand to even fill 1mb blocks. So - why do you fear bigger blocks if there is no demand for them?

I say this the third time: If we ever get so many transactions that you need datacenters to host the blockchain, even solutions like lightning or sidechains will need datacentres; and they will maybe have more potencial to restrict transactions than datacentre-nodes (who will simply be the executor of clientside-signed transactions).

Both ways lead to datacentres in the long run. But while the small block ways introduces centralization in the payment earlier than it needs to be, the big block way keeps the payment processing decentralized as long as it is possible.

It's an irony that you with the name RealBitcoin promote the centralization of bitcoin payments with something that was never part of bitcoin by accusing those who wants to keep payment decentral to be promoters of centralization.

Think for your own and stop following authorities!

Edit Edit: Answering this too


Keeping the blockchain is no problem, at least with pruning.

Downloading is a problem and a sector where we need to find solutions, independently if we raise the blocksize or not. It needs way too much time to start a node.

moore's law is dead.

I`m not talking about block size but the size of the entire blockchain.

It's already 60 GB, and its growing. If you wanna raise the block size to 8-16 mb later, it will grow rapidly.


You are talking about small people not having room for transaction. But nodes not having HDD room for blockchain that is ok no?

Well it isnt, the blockchain must stay as small as possible, because otherwise it will grow faster than MOORES LAW or other pseudoscience, and you will quickly find out that only datacenters could host bitcoin in the future.

get lost in ether vapors already.

The amount of illogic sold as logic scales very well in this place.


You realize how stupid this sentence is? Bitcoin can scale. We just need to raise to blocksize to, let's say, 4 mb, and bitcoin quadrupled it's transaction capacity. That proofs it can scale.

What you mean is: Bitcoin can't scale "to infinity". That may be true to some degree but everything but important if you have other interests than thworing big red herrings around. As I said above:


Ah, and about this


That's a chain of bs based on the flawed assumption that every blocksize-increase is an increase of centralization - and even if this is assumed true it remains a chain of bs without any proof.

But remarkable is this


That's a proof of brainwashing. Neither is there a guarantee that a capacity increase will decrease the number of participants significantly, nor that there will be a transaction processing centralization. The opposite - if we drive transactions offchain we will see a transaction processing centralization, be it really offchain (payment providers) or with lightning or sidechains. Only onchain transactions are decentralized. That you attack those who wants to keep bitcoin transaction processing decentralized as agents of centralization shows how deeply you made double speak your mother language while not even knowing it.

Again, boring.

But, this time: true. Camp classic is actually very frustrated, because everybody eats the idea that bigger blocks === centralization (which could not be proofed untill today (i)) while noone seems to see the damage of smaller blocks (that is: a stopp of the growth (ii), a damage of privacy (iii), an exclusion of those who might need bicoin (iv) and the eating of bitcoins lunch by another coin (v)) -- in short: smaller blocks are a urgent and real risk of transaction centralization while bigger blocks are a hypothetical risk of a node centralization somewhen in the future.

Appendix:

i. neither bandwidth nor storage could been proofen as a problem. A proof that this is all more like a distraction can be found in the apathy / rejection of thin blocks by core. (thinblocks are developed and can NOW solve any bandwith issue with bigger blocks)
ii. we reached peak blockspace. If you find bitcoin's (legal) killer app today, it would be not worth a note, because we don't have the space to use it.
iii. privacy requires a) a chain of transactions (coinjoin) and b) the no size-effective use of adresses for transactions. If you have any basic knowledge about bitcoin you should understand b)
iv. it was claimed so often that people of the third world need bitcoin. With raising fees they can't.
v. ethereum is the new magnet for investments.

Fun fact, nobody is controlling this even now. The demand for bitcoin use hasn't to this day surpassed the limit of transactions that can be processed by bitcoin's network (aside of stress tests of course). But the sad truth is that bitcoin can't scale. No matter how bigger the network gets, this limit to transactions will always be there, for a robust, scalable technologies to be based on bitcoin though, the network's size would need to remain stable in order for them to be able to count on it. Increasing the block size destroys the potential for such technologies to be based on bitcoin as it's guaranteed to decrease the numbers of participants in the network and centralize transaction processing. This kind of centralization brings interest away from bitcoin.

Classics shills grasping at straws. After they see no one is supporting their nodes and no one with money invested in actual Bitcoin and not their business (like the Winklevoss which actually own a lot of Bitcoin and aren't just making USD of a Bitcoin business) are supporting the best (Core) devs.

Agreed highly.
Do you mean that we SHOULD promote the hardfork?

If Bitcoin gets really decentralized they cannot combat criminal activity anyway (unless they push some malicious code) (for example, FBI pushed malicious JS in Tor websites somehow)

And this is boooring, too.*

Claiming to know what Bitcoin is used for and what it is not used for. We don't need no government to decide how many people need to use bitcoin. If you love to be a central planner, you might want to look for a job in governmental administration.


*
I. Actually, Bitcoin is used for many more things than underground markets. Some examples are the international buying of goods, when credit cards don't work, capital flight from restricted areas, paying of international freelancers, gambling, investing and many more things.
II. increasing the blocksize might be a burden for a small percentage of nodes but it will not damage the system as a whole.
III. Bitcoin is not bad for purchasing goods online. It works very well for it. It's also not bad for buying in a shop, because there are mechanism to detect if a transaction might be confirmed or not. It works well.
IV. Bitcoin works quiet well for a whole number of usecases.
V. not a hard fork turns users away but the absence of a hardfork when it is necessary.
VI. restricting bitcoins ability as a payment system damages on of the main usecases of bitcoin: as a token that is used to speculate on the worth it will have when used as a widespread mean of payment.

in fact even core nodes witnessed a tight rise.

so many versions now, gotta love decentralization.

good luck forking that...