Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 11074. (Read 26731210 times)

Enough, small companies can bribe, I'm sure they can still.

This perfectly adds to the usual old scheme:
China buying gold in anticipation of Yuan devaluation, and banning Bitcoin because wants to prevent capital outflows.
2015 cycle is not repeating only in prices, apparently.

Like China would even really ban mining there, ha. Bitmain has too much money to bribe officials.

I wouldn't bundle jbreher with stolfi. And The Roach is just on another plane of existence.

Off topic, but...

Word around the campfire has it that Rosewater appears to be suffering from protracted post acute benzodiazepine withdrawal. It's all quite heady and complicated. Lots of ins. Lots of outs. Akathisia, some hallucinations. GABA receptor down-regulation. This on top of tardive dysphoria and that wheat thing, to the best of my knowledge. At any rate, doctors orders. The line between iatrogenic physical dependence and full blown pill sick smack-houndery is a bit unclear. Sometimes you eat the bear, sometimes the bear eats you.


Now where's my hat?

I see where you're at, but I have a problem with the "bankers" (miners) being able to set technical parameters without the users' (user nodes) consent. What I expect miners/bankers to do in such a situation is to build taller entry barriers. Such as enlarging the block size even without immediate financial reward - that is, even if their profit doesn't change or even dips marginally. This would discourage new users from running full nodes.

I know your opinion that "fully validating user nodes", or whatever you call the non-mining nodes, add no value to the network. I beg to differ. They can and will ignore malformed blocks. They verify. And "verify don't trust" is probably the strongest of bitcoin's values. When that verification goes away, we - the bitcoiners, including yourself by your own definition - are going to have to fall back to trusting the "bankers".

That's why I am unable to understand the philosophy/motivations behind your stance. You are definitely not stupid, either, so I guess that's why many regulars here can't attribute your posts to stupidity and instead bet on malice.

TL;DR When larger blocks are really needed by the users, we will get them.

In other news, Bitcoin is deadagain

You are always generous, send me 614sM. please.

Thx.

Pretty sure this is the 73rd time that mining has been banned in China

https://twitter.com/ReformedBroker/status/1114968054931316736

  

You are incorrect. My advocacy has always been for no protocol-determined block limit.

Absolutely. Now you seem to have caught up.

Damn not only didn't catch up on this thread but I fell behind another 5 pages.

Having shit to do in life gets in the way.

and getting distracted by threads like this

http://www.forwardlook.net/forums/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=31027&posts=116&start=1

and vids of rust removal doesn't help!

This shit is cool.
https://www.google.com/search?q=Electrolysis+rust+removal&client=firefox-b-1-d&source=lnms&tbm=vid&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiMpsaq6cHhAhXR1VkKHd00DeAQ_AUIDigB&biw=1920&bih=920

1.  Agreed.  Popularity does not imply superior technology.  

2.  Conversely, superior technology does not imply popularity.  Superior technology loses all the time, especially when going up against a competitor with entrenched network effects. Inferior protocols win. All. The. Time.

3.  If you are trying to build a global competitor to fiat, popularity and network effects are incredibly important.  

It is unquestionable that Bitcoin has stronger network effects than Bcash, by orders of magnitude.  

Further Bcash technology (BCH and SV) is inferior, because its security model is weak.  Its security model is weak for a number of reasons, all of which come back to a lack of effective decentralization. Without an effective security model, it is not an attractive store of value.  If you are not an effective store of value, you cannot gain network effects.  

If you have inferior network effect and inferior technology, then you have a snowballs chance. In the unlikely event that 8MB blocks became essential for survival, community consensus would rapidly coalesce around 8MB blocks, there would be a hard fork and BCH and SV would remain stranded assets. But the reality is that 8MB are completely unnecessary and would make BTC weaker, not stronger. Accordingly no such consensus exists.


 I am far more worried about a disruptive innnovation which does away with the need for a blockchain (such as Grin) than I am worried about a Bitcoin carbon copy with a couple of parameter tweaks.  

The market picks the winners. The market doesn't always care about "superior technology".

Off topic, but...

Word around the campfire has it that Rosewater appears to be suffering from protracted post acute benzodiazepine withdrawal. It's all quite heady and complicated. Lots of ins. Lots of outs. Akathisia, some hallucinations. GABA receptor down-regulation. This on top of tardive dysphoria and that wheat thing, to the best of my knowledge. At any rate, doctors orders. The line between iatrogenic physical dependence and full blown pill sick smack-houndery is a bit unclear. Sometimes you eat the bear, sometimes the bear eats you.


Now where's my hat?