I think what it comes down to is two separate visions for Bitcoin:
Vision 1: The block size limit should be used as a policy tool by a group of experts to balance fees with security/decentralization.
Vision 2: The evolution of the network should be determined by the code we freely choose to run, and Bitcoin should scale with demand through a market-based process.
Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 20628. (Read 26608566 times)
October 19, 2015, 01:34:37 AM
October 19, 2015, 01:23:39 AM
Which one is it then? Cap or no cap?
Do you oppose central control or do you not?
Personally, I think that sufficient incentives exist that the network of miners could be self governing wrt max_block_size.
Realistically, I'll take a half measure to help assuage the doubts of the fearful.
Alright. Let me jump in with my favorite analogy then.
Seeing as we love all things free market then let me ask: are you of the opinion that the network of logging companies & cattle farmers should be left to self-governance in regards to how much of the Amazon rain forest they can cut?
Sounds like we need a strong military with lots of guns to point at them. And maybe Beefstream could get involved with setting production quotas. (While marketing their tasty soy, pea protein, alternative.)
I know it will upset stolfi to hear, he may even tell me to burn in hell, but land owners should be free to destroy/nurture/defile/build and grow/harvest their own property as they choose.
Now returning to your regularly scheduled chartbuddy streak.
Land owners?
Surely you are not proposing these companies are legitimate owners of all this rain forest they are cutting down.
Anyway, I see you didn't quite get the idea I was attempting to get through to you.
How about big game hunters? No reason we should enforce laws about this right? I'm guessing you are fine with them self-governing the hunting of endangered species?
October 19, 2015, 01:18:03 AM
Which one is it then? Cap or no cap?
Do you oppose central control or do you not?
Personally, I think that sufficient incentives exist that the network of miners could be self governing wrt max_block_size.
Realistically, I'll take a half measure to help assuage the doubts of the fearful.
Alright. Let me jump in with my favorite analogy then.
Seeing as we love all things free market then let me ask: are you of the opinion that the network of logging companies & cattle farmers should be left to self-governance in regards to how much of the Amazon rain forest they can cut?
Sounds like we need a strong military with lots of guns to point at them. And maybe Beefstream could get involved with setting production quotas. (While marketing their tasty soy, pea protein, alternative.)
I know it will upset stolfi to hear, he may even tell me to burn in hell, but land owners should be free to destroy/nurture/defile/build and grow/harvest their own property as they choose.
Now returning to your regularly scheduled chartbuddy streak.
October 19, 2015, 01:02:05 AM
I know you're quite enamored with bitcoin, I am too, but the real world (power companies, sellers/renters of real estate) tend to still be using that whole silly fiat thing. Haven't quite listed themselves on MPEx with the other titans of industry, as it were. The world isn't our own personal castle game... yet.
Miners incentives are the variable that counts. And it isn't gmaxwell in a cape that is keeping them in line and holding their arm back from slaughtering the golden goose. Why? Because satoshi designed the entire system so that their interests were sufficiently aligned with those that they service.
Yes, I agree he was very wise in retrospect to set the block size cap.
In fact I will suggest he did not even fully understand the importance and critical importance of this decision for the long term success of Bitcoin. Absent of a cap the incentives you refer to become completely skewed in favor of the miners at great cost for the security & decentralization of the network.
Don't get me wrong, we shall increase the block size eventually, "just not tonight, dear".
Ah, the old, "if satoshi had more foresight he would agree with me" argument.
As for what he actually said:
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.
) I am increasingly astonished that people who gravitated to bitcoin for its free market incentives and function, are simultaneously terrified that without central control over "consensus" it would fall on it's face.
Which one is it then? Cap or no cap?
Do you oppose central control or do you not?
Personally, I think that sufficient incentives exist that the network of miners could be self governing wrt max_block_size.
Realistically, I'll take a half measure to help assuage the doubts of the fearful.
Alright. Let me jump in with my favorite analogy then.
Seeing as we love all things free market then let me ask: are you of the opinion that the network of logging companies & cattle farmers should be left to self-governance in regards to how much of the Amazon rain forest they can cut?
October 19, 2015, 01:01:37 AM
October 19, 2015, 01:01:35 AM
This banter is making me wish for the days with six ChartBuddys in a row.
October 19, 2015, 12:56:14 AM
I know you're quite enamored with bitcoin, I am too, but the real world (power companies, sellers/renters of real estate) tend to still be using that whole silly fiat thing. Haven't quite listed themselves on MPEx with the other titans of industry, as it were. The world isn't our own personal castle game... yet.
Miners incentives are the variable that counts. And it isn't gmaxwell in a cape that is keeping them in line and holding their arm back from slaughtering the golden goose. Why? Because satoshi designed the entire system so that their interests were sufficiently aligned with those that they service.
Yes, I agree he was very wise in retrospect to set the block size cap.
In fact I will suggest he did not even fully understand the importance and critical importance of this decision for the long term success of Bitcoin. Absent of a cap the incentives you refer to become completely skewed in favor of the miners at great cost for the security & decentralization of the network.
Don't get me wrong, we shall increase the block size eventually, "just not tonight, dear".
Ah, the old, "if satoshi had more foresight he would agree with me" argument.
As for what he actually said:
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.
) I am increasingly astonished that people who gravitated to bitcoin for its free market incentives and function, are simultaneously terrified that without central control over "consensus" it would fall on it's face.
Which one is it then? Cap or no cap?
Do you oppose central control or do you not?
Personally, I think that sufficient incentives exist that the network of miners could be self governing wrt max_block_size.
Realistically, I'll take a half measure to help assuage the doubts of the fearful.
October 19, 2015, 12:53:48 AM
If everyone and their rich friends are using Bitcoin to preserve their monetary sovereignty why would they ever convert their money back to fiat?
Because Scrooge McDuck diving into a vault-full of gold is a cartoon and not real. People with wealth generally want to do things with it. Buy yachts, build Casinos, hookers and blow, all that. And that requires a currency that others transact in.
You cannot be serious....
So savings are not a thing anymore? I guess that's how serious the fiat economy has mindfucked everyone's brain...
I guess you are right if you think of bitcoins as dollars, which they are not but to entertain the idea:
Quote
The problem inflationary currency bestows upon capital allocators is insolvable. They are given money of no certain value (pretty much the only sure thing about the paper currency is that it is, literally, burning in your hands, it ticks away like a bomb, it blows in the wind like dust - all this while you're holding it) and have to do something with it. They always, always, always, absolutely always have more than is in fact needed.
http://trilema.com/2012/the-problem-of-too-much-money/#selection-163.0-163.438
Fortunately we all know this is actually not the case and seeing as Bitcoin is deflationary by nature one should be well advised to consider hoarding that shit as long as reasonably possible.
Bitcoin isn't deflationary. And ZIRP / NIRP is what has killed savings and by extension has changed the rules of capitalism.
Not yet, indeed (but fixed supply and all that...). And no.
I'd suggest you go read the article linked to better understand. It's explained very well. "Capital misallocation" are the key words here.
October 19, 2015, 12:52:26 AM
I know you're quite enamored with bitcoin, I am too, but the real world (power companies, sellers/renters of real estate) tend to still be using that whole silly fiat thing. Haven't quite listed themselves on MPEx with the other titans of industry, as it were. The world isn't our own personal castle game... yet.
Miners incentives are the variable that counts. And it isn't gmaxwell in a cape that is keeping them in line and holding their arm back from slaughtering the golden goose. Why? Because satoshi designed the entire system so that their interests were sufficiently aligned with those that they service.
Yes, I agree he was very wise in retrospect to set the block size cap.
In fact I will suggest he did not even fully understand the importance and critical importance of this decision for the long term success of Bitcoin. Absent of a cap the incentives you refer to become completely skewed in favor of the miners at great cost for the security & decentralization of the network.
Don't get me wrong, we shall increase the block size eventually, "just not tonight, dear".
Ah, the old, "if satoshi had more foresight he would agree with me" argument.
As for what he actually said:
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.
) I am increasingly astonished that people who gravitated to bitcoin for its free market incentives and function, are simultaneously terrified that without central control over "consensus" it would fall on it's face.
Which one is it then? Cap or no cap?
Do you oppose central control or do you not?
October 19, 2015, 12:51:35 AM
I'm not going to go digging, but you recently were arguing in this thread that bitfury doesn't sell their coins, they're banking on the future, being positive on today's income sheet is secondary. They are using big venture capital money to basically buy huge amounts of coin without pushing the secondary market. This is absolutely forward looking, not investing in today's system that costs $7 or whatever per tx in inflation costs.
Your final statement should stand alone as it succinctly shows your complete misunderstanding of how, and why(!), this whole thing even works.
Hmm wait a minute. Who ever mentioned fiat profit?
Profit, in this case, is denominated in Bitcoin. Bitfury mines the Bitcoin blockchain simply because it is the most valuable coin. The value is not in the future but now. The fact that it fluctuates is irrelevant.
As for your last comment, what is it you don't agree with? Do you propose miners are origins of Bitcoin value? Or that we should set the rules of the protocol so as to maximize their profits regardless of the costs externalized to other participants?
I know you're quite enamored with bitcoin, I am too, but the real world (power companies, sellers/renters of real estate) tend to still be using that whole silly fiat thing. Haven't quite listed themselves on MPEx with the other titans of industry, as it were. The world isn't our own personal castle game... yet.
Miners incentives are the variable that counts. And it isn't gmaxwell in a cape that is keeping them in line and holding their arm back from slaughtering the golden goose. Why? Because satoshi designed the entire system so that their interests were sufficiently aligned with those that they service.
Yes, I agree he was very wise in retrospect to set the block size cap.
In fact I will suggest he did not even fully understand the importance and critical importance of this decision for the long term success of Bitcoin. Absent of a cap the incentives you refer to become completely skewed in favor of the miners at great cost for the security & decentralization of the network.
Don't get me wrong, we shall increase the block size eventually, "just not tonight, dear".
You send to be struggling with the reality that a temporary max_blocksize was introduced by Satoshi. Such limitation has never been part of the protocol or original design.
Would you please go back to the asylum over at bitco.in? I thought you guys were busy designing "Bitcoin Unlimited"?
October 19, 2015, 12:50:30 AM
I'm not going to go digging, but you recently were arguing in this thread that bitfury doesn't sell their coins, they're banking on the future, being positive on today's income sheet is secondary. They are using big venture capital money to basically buy huge amounts of coin without pushing the secondary market. This is absolutely forward looking, not investing in today's system that costs $7 or whatever per tx in inflation costs.
Your final statement should stand alone as it succinctly shows your complete misunderstanding of how, and why(!), this whole thing even works.
Hmm wait a minute. Who ever mentioned fiat profit?
Profit, in this case, is denominated in Bitcoin. Bitfury mines the Bitcoin blockchain simply because it is the most valuable coin. The value is not in the future but now. The fact that it fluctuates is irrelevant.
As for your last comment, what is it you don't agree with? Do you propose miners are origins of Bitcoin value? Or that we should set the rules of the protocol so as to maximize their profits regardless of the costs externalized to other participants?
I know you're quite enamored with bitcoin, I am too, but the real world (power companies, sellers/renters of real estate) tend to still be using that whole silly fiat thing. Haven't quite listed themselves on MPEx with the other titans of industry, as it were. The world isn't our own personal castle game... yet.
Miners incentives are the variable that counts. And it isn't gmaxwell in a cape that is keeping them in line and holding their arm back from slaughtering the golden goose. Why? Because satoshi designed the entire system so that their interests were sufficiently aligned with those that they service.
Yes, I agree he was very wise in retrospect to set the block size cap.
In fact I will suggest he did not even fully understand the importance and critical importance of this decision for the long term success of Bitcoin. Absent of a cap the incentives you refer to become completely skewed in favor of the miners at great cost for the security & decentralization of the network.
Don't get me wrong, we shall increase the block size eventually, "just not tonight, dear".
You send to be struggling with the reality that a temporary max_blocksize was introduced by Satoshi. Such limitation has never been part of the protocol or original design.
October 19, 2015, 12:47:52 AM
I know you're quite enamored with bitcoin, I am too, but the real world (power companies, sellers/renters of real estate) tend to still be using that whole silly fiat thing. Haven't quite listed themselves on MPEx with the other titans of industry, as it were. The world isn't our own personal castle game... yet.
Miners incentives are the variable that counts. And it isn't gmaxwell in a cape that is keeping them in line and holding their arm back from slaughtering the golden goose. Why? Because satoshi designed the entire system so that their interests were sufficiently aligned with those that they service.
Yes, I agree he was very wise in retrospect to set the block size cap.
In fact I will suggest he did not even fully understand the importance and critical importance of this decision for the long term success of Bitcoin. Absent of a cap the incentives you refer to become completely skewed in favor of the miners at great cost for the security & decentralization of the network.
Don't get me wrong, we shall increase the block size eventually, "just not tonight, dear".
Ah, the old, "if satoshi had more foresight he would agree with me" argument.
As for what he actually said:
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.
You still completely miss that miners actually do determine what happens to the network, and that's ok, because our interests align. Making blocks so big as to destroy the node network is bad, yes, for them as well as the users. (Not even considering the orphan costs.) I am increasingly astonished that people who gravitated to bitcoin for its free market incentives and function, are simultaneously terrified that without central control over "consensus" it would fall on its face.
October 19, 2015, 12:46:02 AM
If everyone and their rich friends are using Bitcoin to preserve their monetary sovereignty why would they ever convert their money back to fiat?
Because Scrooge McDuck diving into a vault-full of gold is a cartoon and not real. People with wealth generally want to do things with it. Buy yachts, build Casinos, hookers and blow, all that. And that requires a currency that others transact in.
You cannot be serious....
So savings are not a thing anymore? I guess that's how serious the fiat economy has mindfucked everyone's brain...
I guess you are right if you think of bitcoins as dollars, which they are not but to entertain the idea:
Quote
The problem inflationary currency bestows upon capital allocators is insolvable. They are given money of no certain value (pretty much the only sure thing about the paper currency is that it is, literally, burning in your hands, it ticks away like a bomb, it blows in the wind like dust - all this while you're holding it) and have to do something with it. They always, always, always, absolutely always have more than is in fact needed.
http://trilema.com/2012/the-problem-of-too-much-money/#selection-163.0-163.438
Fortunately we all know this is actually not the case and seeing as Bitcoin is deflationary by nature one should be well advised to consider hoarding that shit as long as reasonably possible.
Bitcoin isn't deflationary. And ZIRP / NIRP is what has killed savings and by extension has changed the rules of capitalism.
October 19, 2015, 12:33:42 AM
I'm not going to go digging, but you recently were arguing in this thread that bitfury doesn't sell their coins, they're banking on the future, being positive on today's income sheet is secondary. They are using big venture capital money to basically buy huge amounts of coin without pushing the secondary market. This is absolutely forward looking, not investing in today's system that costs $7 or whatever per tx in inflation costs.
Your final statement should stand alone as it succinctly shows your complete misunderstanding of how, and why(!), this whole thing even works.
Hmm wait a minute. Who ever mentioned fiat profit?
Profit, in this case, is denominated in Bitcoin. Bitfury mines the Bitcoin blockchain simply because it is the most valuable coin. The value is not in the future but now. The fact that it fluctuates is irrelevant.
As for your last comment, what is it you don't agree with? Do you propose miners are origins of Bitcoin value? Or that we should set the rules of the protocol so as to maximize their profits regardless of the costs externalized to other participants?
I know you're quite enamored with bitcoin, I am too, but the real world (power companies, sellers/renters of real estate) tend to still be using that whole silly fiat thing. Haven't quite listed themselves on MPEx with the other titans of industry, as it were. The world isn't our own personal castle game... yet.
Miners incentives are the variable that counts. And it isn't gmaxwell in a cape that is keeping them in line and holding their arm back from slaughtering the golden goose. Why? Because satoshi designed the entire system so that their interests were sufficiently aligned with those that they service.
Yes, I agree he was very wise in retrospect to set the block size cap.
In fact I will suggest he did not even fully understand the importance and critical importance of this decision for the long term success of Bitcoin. Absent of a cap the incentives you refer to become completely skewed in favor of the miners at great cost for the security & decentralization of the network.
Don't get me wrong, we shall increase the block size eventually, "just not tonight, dear".
October 19, 2015, 12:30:22 AM
I'm not going to go digging, but you recently were arguing in this thread that bitfury doesn't sell their coins, they're banking on the future, being positive on today's income sheet is secondary. They are using big venture capital money to basically buy huge amounts of coin without pushing the secondary market. This is absolutely forward looking, not investing in today's system that costs $7 or whatever per tx in inflation costs.
Your final statement should stand alone as it succinctly shows your complete misunderstanding of how, and why(!), this whole thing even works.
Hmm wait a minute. Who ever mentioned fiat profit?
Profit, in this case, is denominated in Bitcoin. Bitfury mines the Bitcoin blockchain simply because it is the most valuable coin. The value is not in the future but now. The fact that it fluctuates is irrelevant.
As for your last comment, what is it you don't agree with? Do you propose miners are origins of Bitcoin value? Or that we should set the rules of the protocol so as to maximize their profits regardless of the costs externalized to other participants?
I know you're quite enamored with bitcoin, I am too, but the real world (power companies, sellers/renters of real estate) tend to still be using that whole silly fiat thing. Haven't quite listed themselves on MPEx with the other titans of industry, as it were. The world isn't our own personal castle game... yet.
Miners incentives are the variable that counts. And it isn't gmaxwell in a cape that is keeping them in line and holding their arm back from slaughtering the golden goose. Why? Because satoshi designed the entire system so that their interests were sufficiently aligned with those that they service.
October 19, 2015, 12:30:08 AM
If everyone and their rich friends are using Bitcoin to preserve their monetary sovereignty why would they ever convert their money back to fiat?
Because Scrooge McDuck diving into a vault-full of gold is a cartoon and not real. People with wealth generally want to do things with it. Buy yachts, build Casinos, hookers and blow, all that. And that requires a currency that others transact in.
You cannot be serious....
So savings are not a thing anymore? I guess that's how serious the fiat economy has mindfucked everyone's brain...
I guess you are right if you think of bitcoins as dollars, which they are not but to entertain the idea:
Quote
The problem inflationary currency bestows upon capital allocators is insolvable. They are given money of no certain value (pretty much the only sure thing about the paper currency is that it is, literally, burning in your hands, it ticks away like a bomb, it blows in the wind like dust - all this while you're holding it) and have to do something with it. They always, always, always, absolutely always have more than is in fact needed.
http://trilema.com/2012/the-problem-of-too-much-money/#selection-163.0-163.438
Fortunately we all know this is actually not the case and seeing as Bitcoin is deflationary by nature one should be well advised to consider hoarding that shit as long as reasonably possible.
October 19, 2015, 12:23:38 AM
Quote
If independence means freedom, in the emerging Era of Bitcoin, independence means freedom from physicality, both geographic and material. If Germany had its wealth stored in BTC instead of gold, it wouldn’t have to beg the USG to please, pretty please, let it audit its own stores under Manhattan. If Germany stockpiled bitcoin instead of gold, it might actually be an independent nation.
Consider yourself lucky. Seeing as you have realized the "Bitcoin opportunity" sooner than 99% of the world's population you shouldn't have any problem transacting directly on its blockchain in the future.
We're playing in the shallow end of the pool and if Bitcoin is going to do anything serious, it's going to have to learn to swim. I have little doubt it will though. And that will mean bigger blocks, one way or another.
What's that even supposed to mean? So because Bitcoin is small we should cater to small pockets and de minimis use cases? How dare should we have ambition and focus our efforts on the more wealthy adopting it, right?
No! Bitcoin is for the people, not the rich! Let's aim for "mainstream adoption", that's where the REAL value is! Right...... right?
October 19, 2015, 12:23:14 AM
If everyone and their rich friends are using Bitcoin to preserve their monetary sovereignty why would they ever convert their money back to fiat?
Because Scrooge McDuck diving into a vault-full of gold is a cartoon and not real. People with wealth generally want to do things with it. Buy yachts, build Casinos, hookers and blow, all that. And that requires a currency that others transact in.
If everyone is just storing their wealth with very little in the way of transactions, mining becomes less profitable, miners leave, network security falls away, money leaves Bitcoin and it all becomes worthless. Which is why that won't happen.
This is all rehashed stuff so I'm going to stop here. People can make their minds up in their own time and blocksize will increase in good time.
October 19, 2015, 12:21:05 AM
Bitcoin is not a real-world currency?
It is at the moment. Under your fantasy future, not so much.
October 19, 2015, 12:18:59 AM
Quote
If independence means freedom, in the emerging Era of Bitcoin, independence means freedom from physicality, both geographic and material. If Germany had its wealth stored in BTC instead of gold, it wouldn’t have to beg the USG to please, pretty please, let it audit its own stores under Manhattan. If Germany stockpiled bitcoin instead of gold, it might actually be an independent nation.
Consider yourself lucky. Seeing as you have realized the "Bitcoin opportunity" sooner than 99% of the world's population you shouldn't have any problem transacting directly on its blockchain in the future.
There's not enough value of Bitcoin for Germany to do that currently. We're playing in the shallow end of the pool and if Bitcoin is going to do anything serious, it's going to have to learn to swim. I have little doubt it will though. And that will mean bigger blocks, one way or another.
Gawd you are such a buzzkill
Do you have no imagination?
Jump to: