So basically you smallblockers are saying you WANT to pay $8/transaction. The road map shows that capacity will only increase at some point in the future when power consumption also increases, maintaining the high cost.
That's absolutely crazy. There may be a demand for what amounts to a wire transfer of gold bars, but it's a tiny market compared to payments, remittances, title xfers, micropayments, etc.
How secure is the network going to be with all of the fees going to third parties on the layers rather than to the miners? Think about it: when the block reward gets quartered (two halvings), those miners will need those fees or network security will be harmed.
Keeping blocks small will HURT security.
Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 19355. (Read 26619939 times)
February 15, 2016, 05:06:12 AM
February 15, 2016, 05:01:04 AM
February 15, 2016, 05:00:00 AM
I don't necessarily disagree with you that there will be people that want more than 21m coins.
An argument like that will never be presented "we want more coins and high inflation for the lolz".
It will be presented as "we want cheap txs".... Arguments like "People want cheap txs, who are you to stop that".... Populist bullshit like "bigger blocks" and the "dangers" of "fullblockalypse".
Bah, by the time no more coins are mined the technologies will have change so much... How can anyone predict what will seem a good idea then? ^^
February 15, 2016, 04:54:13 AM
I am still curious why did everyone get stuck on this 1mb value? I mean, like I said earlier, why not 1.2mb, or why not just 1 transaction per block if limiting it is the best? I'm just so confused why the current transactions per second limit became the magic number.
It's arbitrary really. Satoshi actually gave more room than necessary, but then again the fees paid back then were like 0.01.
February 15, 2016, 04:51:44 AM
I don't necessarily disagree with you that there will be people that want more than 21m coins.
An argument like that will never be presented "we want more coins and high inflation for the lolz".
It will be presented as "we want cheap txs".... Arguments like "People want cheap txs, who are you to stop that".... Populist bullshit like "bigger blocks" and the "dangers" of "fullblockalypse".
February 15, 2016, 04:47:31 AM
Is Blockstream working on one of those Turing complete scripting languages for smart contracts as a sidechain at all? Are they in competition with Ethereum?
imo, there is no need for a turing complete stack language for specialized use cases like smart contracts. this is bullshit and is coming from ethereum fanboys. security is the first target all other targets have to follow.
ethereum is a hype whithout a single proof in the wild so far.
I would say there is a use for that, that you're a bit harsh on eth here ^^
But that would be really strange to use btc for that. No need to complexify and corrupt the security of btc.
And this is why i'm neither a proponent for the segwit softfork.
I'm sorta tired with the upgrade rush.
Bitcoin is not a sprint, it is a marathon.
Agreed!
Not being able to scale to the adoption is not a real problem. Compromising the current security and potentially losing the trust of years of survival... Now that's what i call a problem.
February 15, 2016, 04:46:23 AM
That's like saying "if the gays can get married, whats to stop people from marrying their pets!". How can you seriously compare raising the block size limit to a slippery slope of raising the total supply? Nobody wants to devalue their coins by creating more, but they DO want to increase the value in them by making them more accessible and liquid.
A forker can troll us with an argument of the following style:
"High tx fees reduce adoption, so we need low tx fees to increase adoption. If that doesn't happen, BTC is dead. So it's preferable to have more than 21mn coins through constant inflation rather than raising tx fees".
They could say "you are crippling BTC's potential through those high fees, we need much lower fees and in order to do that we need subsidy / more coins".
If people insist on having low-fee txs, then the end-game is a ...DOGEcoin (infinite inflation).
Higher fees solve both the inflation issue and also address the sane block utilization issue.
Fees at 1 to 3 cents are ridiculous anyway.
I don't necessarily disagree with you that there will be people that want more than 21m coins. However, 'trolling' does not move the economic majority into submission. They can say it all they want. It's not like anyone in particular will own bitcoins direction if theres a fork, not anymore than anyone owns its direction now. If the economic majority wants more coins it'll happen, regardless of whether it is 'big blockers', 'small blockers' or anyone else. But my guess is that would not happen, as I can't think of any situation where it would be logical to devalue your own coins by making more, when they are already practically infinitely divisible. People would rather divide their own and sell than create more.
I am still curious why did everyone get stuck on this 1mb value? I mean, like I said earlier, why not 1.2mb, or why not just 1 transaction per block if limiting it is the best? I'm just so confused why the current transactions per second limit became the magic number.
February 15, 2016, 04:45:13 AM
Is Blockstream working on one of those Turing complete scripting languages for smart contracts as a sidechain at all? Are they in competition with Ethereum?
imo, there is no need for a turing complete stack language for specialized use cases like smart contracts. this is bullshit and is coming from ethereum fanboys. security is the first target all other targets have to follow.
ethereum is a hype whithout a single proof in the wild so far.
I would say there is a use for that, that you're a bit harsh on eth here ^^
But that would be really strange to use btc for that. No need to complexify and corrupt the security of btc.
And this is why i'm neither a proponent for the segwit softfork.
I'm sorta tired with the upgrade rush.
Bitcoin is not a sprint, it is a marathon.
February 15, 2016, 04:37:46 AM
That's like saying "if the gays can get married, whats to stop people from marrying their pets!". How can you seriously compare raising the block size limit to a slippery slope of raising the total supply? Nobody wants to devalue their coins by creating more, but they DO want to increase the value in them by making them more accessible and liquid.
A forker can troll us with an argument of the following style:
"High tx fees reduce adoption, so we need low tx fees to increase adoption. If that doesn't happen, BTC is dead. So it's preferable to have more than 21mn coins through constant inflation rather than raising tx fees".
They could say "you are crippling BTC's potential through those high fees, we need much lower fees and in order to do that we need subsidy / more coins".
If people insist on having low-fee txs, then the end-game is a ...DOGEcoin (infinite inflation).
Higher fees solve both the inflation issue and also address the sane block utilization issue.
Fees at 1 to 3 cents are ridiculous anyway.
February 15, 2016, 04:24:11 AM
Is Blockstream working on one of those Turing complete scripting languages for smart contracts as a sidechain at all? Are they in competition with Ethereum?
imo, there is no need for a turing complete stack language for specialized use cases like smart contracts. this is bullshit and is coming from ethereum fanboys. security is the first target all other targets have to follow.
ethereum is a hype whithout a single proof in the wild so far.
I would say there is a use for that, that you're a bit harsh on eth here ^^
But that would be really strange to use btc for that. No need to complexify and corrupt the security of btc.
February 15, 2016, 04:14:29 AM
pretty awesome that bitcoin resisted human induced inflation.
That's not even close to an accurate description of what happened. Cripplecore is resisting taking some armor off the truck to allow more cargo capacity. As a result we have an $8/transaction network. Good luck winning any races with that.
If you had 10 MB blocks tomorrow morning, you'd still need 0.8$ in fees, per tx, to replenish lost subsidy income.
People are currently paying 0$ to 0.03$ (for first block inclusion) while "blocks are full", under the current 1 MB scheme. With the current fees, even with 100 MB blocks, and them being full, you'd still be unable to pay the subsidy loss (you'd need 0.08$ per tx). So you'd need something like 250MB blocks with the current fees. This makes it pretty obvious and simple: Fees have to rise.
If fees don't rise, then miners bail out and the network loses security. OR, some new "forkers" will come and say something retarded like "we want free txs forevah, so let us inflate the money quantity instead... why limit btc to 21mn coins? That's ...crippling to BTC... yeah, let's uncripple it by issuing a few hundred million more... we don't want to pay high tx fees you know... we prefer inflation".
Who gets the fees?
Who decides which transactions gets on the block?
February 15, 2016, 04:14:04 AM
If you had 10 MB blocks tomorrow morning, you'd still need 0.8$ in fees, per tx, to replenish lost subsidy income.
People are currently paying 0$ to 0.03$ (for first block inclusion) while "blocks are full", under the current 1 MB scheme. With the current fees, even with 100 MB blocks, and them being full, you'd still be unable to pay the subsidy loss (you'd need 0.08$ per tx). So you'd need something like 250MB blocks with the current fees. This makes it pretty obvious and simple: Fees have to rise.
If fees don't rise, then miners bail out and the network loses security. OR, some new "forkers" will come and say something retarded like "we want free txs forevah, so let us inflate the money quantity instead... why limit btc to 21mn coins? That's ...crippling to BTC... yeah, let's uncripple it by issuing a few hundred million more... we don't want to pay high tx fees you know... we prefer inflation".
People are currently paying 0$ to 0.03$ (for first block inclusion) while "blocks are full", under the current 1 MB scheme. With the current fees, even with 100 MB blocks, and them being full, you'd still be unable to pay the subsidy loss (you'd need 0.08$ per tx). So you'd need something like 250MB blocks with the current fees. This makes it pretty obvious and simple: Fees have to rise.
If fees don't rise, then miners bail out and the network loses security. OR, some new "forkers" will come and say something retarded like "we want free txs forevah, so let us inflate the money quantity instead... why limit btc to 21mn coins? That's ...crippling to BTC... yeah, let's uncripple it by issuing a few hundred million more... we don't want to pay high tx fees you know... we prefer inflation".
That's like saying "if the gays can get married, whats to stop people from marrying their pets!". How can you seriously compare raising the block size limit to a slippery slope of raising the total supply? Nobody wants to devalue their coins by creating more, but they DO want to increase the value in them by making them more accessible and liquid.
Has any analysis been done to determine why 1mb is the best? why not 1.2mb, or half a meg. If limited supply is the answer, let's just make it one transaction every block for ultimate success! Why is less than 5 transactions a second the ideal number? Why would raising that to 10, 20, 30, 40, 100, or 1000 ruin bitcoins security?
More on that... how many hashes are done per transaction, and how many miners do we need for the network to be secure? Does anyone know. I mean, it seems like we are doing quite a lot of calculations per transaction, which means mathematically the transactions are plenty secure, even with an order of magnitude more of them.
February 15, 2016, 04:06:13 AM
pretty awesome that bitcoin resisted human induced inflation.
That's not even close to an accurate description of what happened. Cripplecore is resisting taking some armor off the truck to allow more cargo capacity. As a result we have an $8/transaction network. Good luck winning any races with that.
If you had 10 MB blocks tomorrow morning, you'd still need 0.8$ in fees, per tx, to replenish lost subsidy income.
People are currently paying 0$ to 0.03$ (for first block inclusion) while "blocks are full", under the current 1 MB scheme. With the current fees, even with 100 MB blocks, and them being full, you'd still be unable to pay the subsidy loss (you'd need 0.08$ per tx). So you'd need something like 250MB blocks with the current fees. This makes it pretty obvious and simple: Fees have to rise.
If fees don't rise, then miners bail out and the network loses security. OR, some new "forkers" will come and say something retarded like "we want free txs forevah, so let us inflate the money quantity instead... why limit btc to 21mn coins? That's ...crippling to BTC... yeah, let's uncripple it by issuing a few hundred million more... we don't want to pay high tx fees you know... we prefer inflation".
February 15, 2016, 04:01:04 AM
February 15, 2016, 03:34:47 AM
Is Blockstream working on one of those Turing complete scripting languages for smart contracts as a sidechain at all? Are they in competition with Ethereum?
imo, there is no need for a turing complete stack language for specialized use cases like smart contracts. this is bullshit and is coming from ethereum fanboys. security is the first target all other targets have to follow.
ethereum is a hype whithout a single proof in the wild so far.
Couldn't agree more... bigger complexity means bigger security issues...but still, rootstock connecting bitcoin with ethereum is interesting concept
As any software engineer knows. Complexity sucks and is unnecessary in the vast majority of the case. There's a lot of elegance in designing non-complex systems.
February 15, 2016, 03:22:54 AM
Is Blockstream working on one of those Turing complete scripting languages for smart contracts as a sidechain at all? Are they in competition with Ethereum?
imo, there is no need for a turing complete stack language for specialized use cases like smart contracts. this is bullshit and is coming from ethereum fanboys. security is the first target all other targets have to follow.
ethereum is a hype whithout a single proof in the wild so far.
Couldn't agree more... bigger complexity means bigger security issues...but still, rootstock connecting bitcoin with ethereum is interesting concept
February 15, 2016, 03:05:30 AM
pretty awesome that bitcoin resisted human induced inflation.
That's not even close to an accurate description of what happened. Cripplecore is resisting taking some armor off the truck to allow more cargo capacity. As a result we have an $8/transaction network. Good luck winning any races with that.
That's nonsense. Hdbuck is perfectly right and you repeating your retarded opinion 10000 times doen not make it true. Go fork off and start your oen retardationcoin. I wish you all the luck in the world, but no luck will save you if you build on unsound economics.
February 15, 2016, 03:01:03 AM
February 15, 2016, 02:53:24 AM
pretty awesome that bitcoin resisted human induced inflation.
That's not even close to an accurate description of what happened. Cripplecore is resisting taking some armor off the truck to allow more cargo capacity. As a result we have an $8/transaction network. Good luck winning any races with that.
there is no race, there is not only core, there is no governance.
bitcoin is here to stay and is the reference in regards to security and store of value.
time is on our side here, let the clowns chicken run behind their pipedreamed blockchain technology..
February 15, 2016, 02:51:09 AM
pretty awesome that bitcoin resisted human induced inflation.
That's not even close to an accurate description of what happened. Cripplecore is resisting taking some armor off the truck to allow more cargo capacity. As a result we have an $8/transaction network. Good luck winning any races with that.
Jump to: