Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 20716.

JorgeStolfi

hero member

Activity: 910

Merit: 1003

Quote from: Peter R on October 06, 2015, 12:07:52 PM

I enjoyed your take on the "religious schism" between Core and XT playing out in fast motion...the inquisition...the banishing of the heretics...etc etc. What I would love to see--although it would be difficult and perhaps infeasible at this point in time--is a scholarly article addressing the politics of Bitcoin governance. How do we come to consensus? What does "consensus" really mean in the context of Bitcoin?

Thanks for the comment... but I would not be qualified to write such a paper, of course. That is a social sciences / psychology / anthropology topic...

By the way, one of the most interesting Scaling conference videos that I saw was the one by Gabriella Coleman. You must have seen that in person, I suppose. She would be the person to write that paper -- if she could be conviced to spend a year or two studying the bitcoin community...

But I think that, as you suggest, bitcoin will need some governmance entity. A good example may be the General Conference on Weights and Measures, that governs the metric system --- a much more critical "protocol" than bitcoin. It has representatives from all countries, typically designated by the local standards bodies. The delegates propose "BIP"s, they debate and ponder, and then eventually decide on "forks" by vote. It has no legal power, but it has considerable moral power; countries and companies will promptly accept its decisions, because "a bad standard is always better than no standard".

Other similar examples are IUPAC (for chemical nomenclature), the UNICODE consortium, ISO, the International Earth Rotation and Reference Systems Service (that defines the UTC leap seconds), etc.

ChartBuddy

legendary

Activity: 2380

Merit: 1823

1CBuddyxy4FerT3hzMmi1Jz48ESzRw1ZzZ

Coin

Explanation

hdbuck

legendary

Activity: 1260

Merit: 1002

Quote from: billyjoeallen on October 06, 2015, 09:57:26 PM

Quote from: poeEDgar on October 06, 2015, 01:46:10 PM

Bigger blocks would require a good deal of adoption, which has yet to happen. Whether you want the limit raised or not. Cheesy

That's a circular argument. Lots of people are reluctant to adopt a technology that isn't scalable. In't isn't exactly the Field of dreams. If you build it, they may not come BUT if you DON'T build it, they certainly won't.

ChartBuddy

legendary

Activity: 2380

Merit: 1823

1CBuddyxy4FerT3hzMmi1Jz48ESzRw1ZzZ

Coin

Explanation

Holliday

legendary

Activity: 1120

Merit: 1012

Quote from: adamstgBit on October 06, 2015, 09:40:36 PM

Prediction: in 5-10 days price will spike another few dollars and we all come on this thread, first talk about how we are going to the moon, and then vigorously discus block size limit, once again i'm going to lose my shit and post something like this.

How's your full node going Adam? I asked in the other thread, but you must have missed it.

I decided to up my connections to 30 while we were discussing nodes in that thread, so I needed to restart mine. Since then (September 16th), I've received 20GB and sent 83GB. That's almost 5GB per day.

ChartBuddy

legendary

Activity: 2380

Merit: 1823

1CBuddyxy4FerT3hzMmi1Jz48ESzRw1ZzZ

Coin

Explanation

ChartBuddy

legendary

Activity: 2380

Merit: 1823

1CBuddyxy4FerT3hzMmi1Jz48ESzRw1ZzZ

Coin

Explanation

ChartBuddy

legendary

Activity: 2380

Merit: 1823

1CBuddyxy4FerT3hzMmi1Jz48ESzRw1ZzZ

Coin

Explanation

billyjoeallen

legendary

Activity: 1106

Merit: 1007

Hide your women

Quote from: poeEDgar on October 06, 2015, 01:46:10 PM

Bigger blocks would require a good deal of adoption, which has yet to happen. Whether you want the limit raised or not. Cheesy

That's a circular argument. Lots of people are reluctant to adopt a technology that isn't scalable. In't isn't exactly the Field of dreams. If you build it, they may not come BUT if you DON'T build it, they certainly won't.

adamstgBit

legendary

Activity: 1904

Merit: 1037

Trusted Bitcoiner

Prediction: in 5-10 days price will spike another few dollars and we all come on this thread, first talk about how we are going to the moon, and then vigorously discus block size limit, once again i'm going to lose my shit and post something like this.

Quote from: adamstgBit on October 06, 2015, 01:51:06 PM

Quote from: poeEDgar on October 06, 2015, 01:46:10 PM

Quote from: adamstgBit on October 06, 2015, 01:39:30 PM

I want bigger blooooocks!

Bigger blocks would require a good deal of adoption, which has yet to happen. Whether you want the limit raised or not. Cheesy

I WANT I WANT I WAAAAAAAAAAAANNNNNNNNNNNNNTTTTTTTTTTTTT

ChartBuddy

legendary

Activity: 2380

Merit: 1823

1CBuddyxy4FerT3hzMmi1Jz48ESzRw1ZzZ

Coin

Explanation

ChartBuddy

legendary

Activity: 2380

Merit: 1823

1CBuddyxy4FerT3hzMmi1Jz48ESzRw1ZzZ

Coin

Explanation

BlindMayorBitcorn

legendary

Activity: 1260

Merit: 1116

BlindMayorBitcorn

legendary

Activity: 1260

Merit: 1116

Quote from: nioc on October 06, 2015, 07:00:27 PM

Quote from: BlindMayorBitcorn on October 06, 2015, 06:13:27 PM

Real news:

Bitcoin Price Hits Highest Level Since August

Cheesy

"but accelerated at 14:00 UTC when the price jumped from $243.01 to $246.15 over a 15-minute span."

My oh my I can't believe it Shocked

Up $3.14 WOW

Thanks for posting as I never read that rag.

I wonder if they will cover Dumpsgiving with the same gusto Undecided

ChartBuddy

legendary

Activity: 2380

Merit: 1823

1CBuddyxy4FerT3hzMmi1Jz48ESzRw1ZzZ

Coin

Explanation

nioc

legendary

Activity: 1624

Merit: 1008

Quote from: BlindMayorBitcorn on October 06, 2015, 06:13:27 PM

Real news:

Bitcoin Price Hits Highest Level Since August

Cheesy

"but accelerated at 14:00 UTC when the price jumped from $243.01 to $246.15 over a 15-minute span."

My oh my I can't believe it Shocked

Up $3.14 WOW

Thanks for posting as I never read that rag.

hdbuck

legendary

Activity: 1260

Merit: 1002

Quote from: billyjoeallen on October 06, 2015, 06:16:23 PM

Quote from: bambou on October 06, 2015, 05:39:39 PM

Quote from: billyjoeallen on October 06, 2015, 05:14:31 PM

Quote from: bambou on October 06, 2015, 03:43:53 PM

Miners revenues are mandatory to ensure the network's security.

While the block reward tends to 0, it is natural for a fee market to emerge, or else there would not be any incentives left for the miners to keep spending the resources that a POW system requires.

Meanwhile, you can enjoy transacting for nearly nothing.

It is possible to have too much security. Would you hire an army to guard a child's piggy bank? The compensation for miners should be proportional to the security they actually provide. It costs almost a million dollars/day to secure a network with a 3-4 Billion dollar market cap. How much do you think the New York Fed spends guarding their gold vaults under 33 Liberty ST. ? I would be very surprised if it was anywhere close to 1 million/day.

If miners can provide 90% as much security for 10% of the current cost/transaction, that is a increase in value to network users. If they keep stonewalling any blocksize increase, they risk losing market share to competing altcoins.

I'm not selling my BTC, but i'm not reinvesting my arbitrage profits either. I'm using them to buy bitshares.

If small blockers were truly committed to decentralization, they wouldn't be limiting Bitcoin's utility. A settlement network between trusted third parties is absolutely not what Satoshi or any of us early adopters had in mind. It's supposed to be a peer-to-peer electronic cash system. It always was.

So the caping is preventing utility? Or "mass adoption" maybe?

What is actually forcing miners to spend millions to secure a system that should not be as powerful?

Seriously, you need to take a deep breath.

Yes, capping is preventing utility and impeding mass adoption. 7 transactions/sec cannot support mass adoption. Nobody is FORCING miners to spend millions. They-- like any investors--are expecting a ROI on sunk capital. Miners are employees of the network. Hodlers are the owners.

The thing you got most wrong is that Bitcoin is NOT powerful. It's a network with a 7 TPS capacity. It is a very SECURE network with relatively little power. We could octuple the power with BIP101 at a relatively low cost to security. If we don't, we will lose market share. It's as simple as that.

you are simple as that.

billyjoeallen

legendary

Activity: 1106

Merit: 1007

Hide your women

Quote from: bambou on October 06, 2015, 05:39:39 PM

Quote from: billyjoeallen on October 06, 2015, 05:14:31 PM

Quote from: bambou on October 06, 2015, 03:43:53 PM

Miners revenues are mandatory to ensure the network's security.

While the block reward tends to 0, it is natural for a fee market to emerge, or else there would not be any incentives left for the miners to keep spending the resources that a POW system requires.

Meanwhile, you can enjoy transacting for nearly nothing.

It is possible to have too much security. Would you hire an army to guard a child's piggy bank? The compensation for miners should be proportional to the security they actually provide. It costs almost a million dollars/day to secure a network with a 3-4 Billion dollar market cap. How much do you think the New York Fed spends guarding their gold vaults under 33 Liberty ST. ? I would be very surprised if it was anywhere close to 1 million/day.

If miners can provide 90% as much security for 10% of the current cost/transaction, that is a increase in value to network users. If they keep stonewalling any blocksize increase, they risk losing market share to competing altcoins.

I'm not selling my BTC, but i'm not reinvesting my arbitrage profits either. I'm using them to buy bitshares.

If small blockers were truly committed to decentralization, they wouldn't be limiting Bitcoin's utility. A settlement network between trusted third parties is absolutely not what Satoshi or any of us early adopters had in mind. It's supposed to be a peer-to-peer electronic cash system. It always was.

So the caping is preventing utility? Or "mass adoption" maybe?

What is actually forcing miners to spend millions to secure a system that should not be as powerful?

Seriously, you need to take a deep breath.

Yes, capping is preventing utility and impeding mass adoption. 7 transactions/sec cannot support mass adoption. Nobody is FORCING miners to spend millions. They-- like any investors--are expecting a ROI on sunk capital. Miners are employees of the network. Hodlers are the owners.

The thing you got most wrong is that Bitcoin is NOT powerful. It's a network with a 7 TPS capacity. It is a very SECURE network with relatively little power. We could octuple the power with BIP101 at a relatively low cost to security. If we don't, we will lose market share. It's as simple as that.

BlindMayorBitcorn

legendary

Activity: 1260

Merit: 1116