Coin
Explanation
Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 19102. (Read 26608322 times)
March 05, 2016, 09:00:38 AM
March 05, 2016, 08:53:32 AM
I'm not talking to Core devs now, I'm talking to you -- a Core supporter who claims that blocksize shouldn't be increased, because fees market.
I don't run things, so my opinion is irrelevant.
Should have opened with that, limiting me to a single, terse reply:
Then why post?
You asked me *my* opinion and I wrote it.
March 05, 2016, 08:50:05 AM
I'm not talking to Core devs now, I'm talking to you -- a Core supporter who claims that blocksize shouldn't be increased, because fees market.
I don't run things, so my opinion is irrelevant.
Should have opened with that, limiting me to a single, terse reply:
Then why post?
P.S. Personally, I'd be fine with 8c min tx fees & 2MB blocks now. But neither Classic nor Core is offering that, so...
March 05, 2016, 08:45:13 AM
I'm not talking to Core devs now, I'm talking to you -- a Core supporter who claims that blocksize shouldn't be increased, because fees market.
I don't run things, so my opinion is irrelevant.
If you want my proposal / solution, then that is not in line with core, classic, etc.
It would be something like:
-bump fees to at least 0.08$ per 250b tx.
-bump block size to 2 mb (or implement segwit with a 2mb effective capacity - but also ensuring that all bytes used by segwit get charged the same fees, irregardless of the data structure they are in). 4mb could also be implemented if safe.
-watch with pride the catharsis that ensues as dust/spam get evicted, and block use drops to 400-600kb/block with 3x-5x potential to grow
March 05, 2016, 08:36:48 AM
Then why advertise it as a scaling solution, if scaling itself is a bad thing, due to not being instrumental to fee market developing?
Shouldn't they come up with some block-bloating code, to compensate for the nasty scaling side effect?
Shouldn't they come up with some block-bloating code, to compensate for the nasty scaling side effect?
What you are attacking are the irrationalities of those who attack core devs, not the official position of core devs.
Core has a scaling roadmap to make bitcoin scale far beyond what is capable with block increases. Who told you that they consider scaling a bad thing or that a fee market is their first priority?
I'm not talking to Core devs now, I'm talking to you -- a Core supporter who claims that blocksize shouldn't be increased, because fees market.
If you're going to argue that more tx per solved block is not merely unnecessary but detrimental, because fees market, please be consistent and criticize Core for planning to raise the block size limit.
All I'm asking of you is to stop contradicting yourself, thereby failing at the most basic, the logical, level.
Quote
With fees at 0.00$ to 0.05$, being ~1% of the block reward, there is no meaningful fee market to discuss about.
Then don't.Quote
<>
Because the issues here are not technical. They have the facade of technical disagreements but at their root, they are a way to undermine confidence and promote a governance coup.
Because the issues here are not technical. They have the facade of technical disagreements but at their root, they are a way to undermine confidence and promote a governance coup.
If you feel the issues aren't technical, no point discussing technical issues, is there? Let's don our tinfoil hats and get back to what we do best: talking about the world conspiring to get us
Edit:
>Miners could be mining empty blocks and it wouldn't affect their pocket negatively. That's how insignificant it is.
Oddly enough, they aren't mining mostly empty blocks now.
Why do you suppose that is?
How would segwit encourage them to mine full blocks?
How would 2MB blocksize limit discourage them from mining full blocks?
Again, what point are you trying to make/defend by introducing the fees market & the fact that miners can mine empty blocks?
March 05, 2016, 08:34:27 AM
Anyone buying bitcoins at 400$+ 320$+ is irresponsibile and deserves to lose their money.
FTFY
March 05, 2016, 08:19:36 AM
Then why advertise it as a scaling solution, if scaling itself is a bad thing, due to not being instrumental to fee market developing?
Shouldn't they come up with some block-bloating code, to compensate for the nasty scaling side effect?
Shouldn't they come up with some block-bloating code, to compensate for the nasty scaling side effect?
What you are attacking are the irrationalities of those who attack core devs, not the official position of core devs.
Core has a scaling roadmap to make bitcoin scale far beyond what is capable with block increases. Who told you that they consider scaling a bad thing or that a fee market is their first priority?
With fees at 0.00$ to 0.05$, being ~1% of the block reward, there is no meaningful fee market to discuss about. There is definitely a mechanism where you can bypass the queue by a higher fee, and in this sense it is a market, but the volume of this market is so tiny that it doesn't even register compared to what subsidy does. Miners could be mining empty blocks and it wouldn't affect their pocket negatively. That's how insignificant it is.
If devs push for highers fees => "ohhh those fuckers want to exclude the poor guy"
If devs allow for more space/tx abundance at near-zero fees => "ohhh they are idiots, this attracts attacks, it can't work for the long-term sustainability of bitcoin and bitcoin mining" etc etc.
If devs don't interefere => "oh they are sitting on their ass doing nothing and their incompetence has created these problems"
Whatever they do, either way, or whatever they don't do, you can find a reason to attack them. This type of thinking can be evidenced by writings such as BillyJoe's who, a few months ago, was saying "ohhh I don't want to pay higher fees, I bought my right to transact when I bought my coins" and then, when commenting on the Lightning network, he was spreading FUD about how will the miners get paid if the LN can do so many transactions at low fees, and that miners should get more fees, otherwise bitcoin will be in problem etc etc.
Whatever the situation => you can use it to attack the devs. And this is happening all day.
Low fees? Fuck the devs.
High fees? Fuck the devs.
The devs are staying out of the argument? Fuck the devs again.
Fuck the devs, Fuck the devs, Fuck the devs, Fuck the devs, Fuck the devs, Fuck the devs, Fuck the devs, Fuck the devs, Fuck the devs, Fuck the devs, Fuck the devs, Fuck the devs, Fuck the devs, Fuck the devs, Fuck the devs, Fuck the devs, Fuck the devs, Fuck the devs, Fuck the devs, Fuck the devs, Fuck the devs, Fuck the devs, Fuck the devs, Fuck the devs
...all day long...
Why?
Because the issues here are not technical. They have the facade of technical disagreements but at their root, they are a way to undermine confidence and promote a governance coup.
March 05, 2016, 08:15:05 AM
Last chance to buy above $400.
March 05, 2016, 08:10:52 AM
Say bye bye to 400
March 05, 2016, 08:05:34 AM
we will going to under $400 
becarefull, watching bitcoin chart and ready to sell your bitcoin
becarefull, watching bitcoin chart and ready to sell your bitcoin
March 05, 2016, 08:03:57 AM
Look, the whole complaint about the spam thing is retarded.
Satoshi didn't get the memo that he is retarded for contemplating the flood/spam/dust attack vectors. We should give him the "retard of the century" award.
March 05, 2016, 08:03:11 AM
Look, the whole complaint about the spam thing is retarded.
Satoshi didn't get the memo that he is retarded for contemplating the flood/spam/dust attack vectors. We should give him the "retard of the century" award.
If Satoshi has intended the 1MB limit to be permanent, he still wouldn't deserve the "retard of the century" award.
But, of course, he never did. Observe:
It can be phased in, like:
if (blocknumber > 115000)
maxblocksize = largerlimit
It can start being in versions way ahead, so by the time it reaches that block number and goes into effect, the older versions that don't have it are already obsolete.
When we're near the cutoff block number, I can put an alert to old versions to make sure they know they have to upgrade.
if (blocknumber > 115000)
maxblocksize = largerlimit
It can start being in versions way ahead, so by the time it reaches that block number and goes into effect, the older versions that don't have it are already obsolete.
When we're near the cutoff block number, I can put an alert to old versions to make sure they know they have to upgrade.
So satoshi clearly doesn't deserve the "retard of the century" award.
Smallblockers, OTOH, do.
I'm trying to understand who exactly is a "smallblocker"?
Core's short-term plan is 1.7mb (segwit) and Classic is 2mb. The difference being ~300kb.
There is no official or alternative development that stays at 1mb.
You are trying to simultaneously argue that
1. We must allow fees market to develop by limiting the number of tx possible.
2. Core's "incidental" blocksize increase with segwit, and plans for increasing the blocksize limit (hard fork in 2017), are a good thing.
These seem to be mutually exclusive.
All I ask for is for is intrinsic consistency
March 05, 2016, 08:02:43 AM
what is wrong with subsidies? everybody knows they are needed to boot strap the system. in the long run no one is in favor of subsidies.
I'm just pointing out the obvious problem of blocksize increase limitations.
Quote
answer this simple question: how much breast milk is right for your baby? when do you think your baby will be grown big enough to start eating on its own?
A baby drinks the milk in order to grow (100% efficiency). The players over here are wasting the 3tx/s limit with spamming. There is no equivalent analogy over there.
March 05, 2016, 08:00:38 AM
March 05, 2016, 07:56:02 AM
Will miners start excluding "spam" transactions once segwit is implemented? If so, why?[/b]
It's up to them.
As for Segwit, Segwit solves the old issue of tx mal. *and* also gives a capacity upg to those who want it.
Then why advertise it as a scaling solution, if scaling itself is a bad thing, due to not being instrumental to fee market developing?
Shouldn't they come up with some block-bloating code, to compensate for the nasty scaling side effect?
March 05, 2016, 07:53:55 AM
Look, the whole complaint about the spam thing is retarded.
Satoshi didn't get the memo that he is retarded for contemplating the flood/spam/dust attack vectors. We should give him the "retard of the century" award.
If Satoshi has intended the 1MB limit to be permanent, he still wouldn't deserve the "retard of the century" award.
But, of course, he never did. Observe:
It can be phased in, like:
if (blocknumber > 115000)
maxblocksize = largerlimit
It can start being in versions way ahead, so by the time it reaches that block number and goes into effect, the older versions that don't have it are already obsolete.
When we're near the cutoff block number, I can put an alert to old versions to make sure they know they have to upgrade.
if (blocknumber > 115000)
maxblocksize = largerlimit
It can start being in versions way ahead, so by the time it reaches that block number and goes into effect, the older versions that don't have it are already obsolete.
When we're near the cutoff block number, I can put an alert to old versions to make sure they know they have to upgrade.
So satoshi clearly doesn't deserve the "retard of the century" award.
Smallblockers, OTOH, do.
I'm trying to understand who exactly is a "smallblocker"?
Core's short-term plan is 1.7mb (segwit) and Classic is 2mb. The difference being ~300kb.
There is no official or alternative development that stays at 1mb.
March 05, 2016, 07:50:35 AM
Will miners start excluding "spam" transactions once segwit is implemented? If so, why?[/b]
It's up to them.
As for Segwit, Segwit solves the old issue of tx mal. *and* also gives a capacity upg to those who want it.
March 05, 2016, 07:50:31 AM
...
I'm not worried. Just pointing out the obvious pattern:
"Oh I can't tolerate BTC that has a fee market, it's unacceptable if fees go up, the solution to spam can't be to make txs more expensive" ...
I'm not worried. Just pointing out the obvious pattern:
"Oh I can't tolerate BTC that has a fee market, it's unacceptable if fees go up, the solution to spam can't be to make txs more expensive" ...
Not sure where you're getting this. Most are fine with having a "fee market." It's creating demand by imposing production quotas (1MB cap) that most don't want.
Criticism varies.
"Ohhh my tx didn't go in with 1c", "bitcoin is unreliable because fees fluctuate", "I don't want a fee market because it excludes the poor", "3tx/s are too little", "fuck the 1mb central planners" etc etc.
You might be missing the point.
It's not that the fees are high, but that they'd have to be ~$6.00 per tx, at current exchange rate and current block size limit, for Bitcoin to stop relying on subsidies (block reward). $6 per transaction, with BTC exchange rate @ $400, is too damn high.
To replace subsidy you'd need 100MB blocks, assuming that there is 100x demand, and that the quality of this demand is on par with our current top-tier urgent txs that are paying 0.06$ per tx.
The problem is that 100MB blocks don't work. And it's not "Core's fault". And it's not like Gavin Andersen or Classic can make them work either. This type of size will eventually work as software and hardware technology evolves.
what is wrong with subsidies? everybody knows they are needed to boot strap the system. in the long run no one is in favor of subsidies.
answer this simple question: how much breast milk is right for your baby? when do you think your baby will be grown big enough to start eating on its own?
March 05, 2016, 07:50:08 AM
Look, the whole complaint about the spam thing is retarded.
Satoshi didn't get the memo that he is retarded for contemplating the flood/spam/dust attack vectors. We should give him the "retard of the century" award.
If Satoshi has intended the 1MB limit to be permanent, he still wouldn't deserve the "retard of the century" award.
But, of course, he never did. Observe:
It can be phased in, like:
if (blocknumber > 115000)
maxblocksize = largerlimit
It can start being in versions way ahead, so by the time it reaches that block number and goes into effect, the older versions that don't have it are already obsolete.
When we're near the cutoff block number, I can put an alert to old versions to make sure they know they have to upgrade.
if (blocknumber > 115000)
maxblocksize = largerlimit
It can start being in versions way ahead, so by the time it reaches that block number and goes into effect, the older versions that don't have it are already obsolete.
When we're near the cutoff block number, I can put an alert to old versions to make sure they know they have to upgrade.
So satoshi clearly doesn't deserve the "retard of the century" award.
Smallblockers, OTOH, do.
March 05, 2016, 07:43:54 AM
Look, the whole complaint about the spam thing is retarded.
Satoshi didn't get the memo that he is retarded for contemplating the flood/spam/dust attack vectors. We should give him the "retard of the century" award.
Jump to: