Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 20858. (Read 26608292 times)

What question? Do you realize how utterly confused you are, talking about buying fractions of the blockchain?

But if you really are convinced about this concept, you must be a big opponent of blockchain pruning (only store unspent outputs of all addresses) right?
Spoiler alert: It's already implemented

If you're not gonna answer my question, then it is fair to assume you don't have an answer.

He doesn't even know someone tried that already. Paycoin was it called?

Ah come on, you. must. be. joking.

Coin
Explanation

Confusing the ledger composed of bitcoins with the chain... now that is something else!

Guys it looks like we had it wrong all along! We're not actually buying bitcoins! We're buying parts of the blockchain!

 

Do you have any concept of what "the chain" is? Imma let you in on a killer deal: if you decide to run a full node, you will not only get 1/21,000,000th of the whole chain, you'll get ALL OF IT without having to spend a dime. Now isn't this AWESOME? 

Nope. I get one twentyone millionth of the whole damn chain. 4 eva. If you think that's too much, then perhaps you are selling your coins too cheaply.

You can say the same for worldwide mass adoption to use bitcoin as a payment network for micro transactions.
Just optimize the mempool and reject zero (and micro) fee transactions to prevent out of memory nodes.
The market will take care of the rest.

Can you provide source for this or did you just make it up?


You are again completely fabricating a straw man...? That's absolutely not what I'm saying and I don't believe I've ever read anything of the sort by Adam.

As for increasing block size having an effect on mining centralization if we do not proceed carefully and by increments there are several technical aspects that can lead to this conclusion.

You need to try harder trollfi this isn't up to your standards...

[/quote]

That was well put, Professor. It's too bad you don't have a wallet. That is worth a tip.

You are buying space on the ledger, not the block. You need to pay to move these bitcoins to a different address on the ledger.

So for 1 bitcoin I get 1/21,000,000th of the whole chain? Are you for real? Were you hit over the head with something?

Easy. 1/21,000,000th of the whole chain.  I answered your question, now you answer mine. If I'm not buying space on the blockchain when I'm buying bitcoin, what am I buying?

 

You're hopeless. How can you possibly hold on to your bitcoins while entertaining these thoughts. This is really all kinds of wrong I'd be embarassed if I were you 

I hope for your sake you are trolling me  

Centralized control works for linux. It's better than the decision-making gridlock of the core devs.

To answer your question, we already have centralized control of code development, but an alt could have better management of code development. Maybe they just want a crypto that scales better and starting over from scratch is easier than convincing people like you to improve Bitcoin. They could pay for the marketing by selling pre-mined coins and kickstart mining with a guaranteed price floor. 

The maximum it would take to absolutely guarantee a 100MM market cap would be $100,000,000 but would almost certainly be a fraction of that.  Throw in a plunge protection team to smooth out the most extreme volatility and you'd have a coin anyone and everyone would want to buy or mine.

Again, it is possible that the devs do not see how wrong that argument is?

The max block size that was put into the rules in 2010 was not "1 MB" but "a value small enough to prevent big-block attack but still much larger than traffic so that it would not create spurious scarcity, and every transaction would be confirmed as quickly as possible." 

Blockstream now wants to change the max block size into "a value that makes block space scarce so that the fees will rise, even if transactions will be delayed by many blocks."  Is it possible that they don't realize that keeping the 1 MB limit as tre traffic crashes into it is a radical change in the protocol?

That new parameter -- the scarcity control -- happens to be 1 MB now, but they admit that they may set it to higher values in the future.  But always to values that will keep space in the blocks scarce.  Who decides how scarce?  Well, the devs ... or maybe the miners, but by grace and privilege of the devs...


There is NO evidence that the centralization of mining that happened so far was due to the natural growth in the block sizes, or that such growth would affect it in the foreseeable future.  That is just one of several dishonest FUD arguments that Adam Back used at one point.  The economies of scale that resulted in concentration of mining are due to the savings in the costs of equipment, space, electricity, cooling, personnel, management, etc.  that exist  for bulk purchasers and for certain geographic locations. 


[/quote]

Wait!
You are the buyer when you buy bitcoins. The seller has to buy blockspace to send the bitcoins your way!

Sounds like a rotten deal. You should renegotiate.

How can you possibly equate buying bitcoin with buying block space  

How's that supposed to work? How many "blockspace" do I get for 1 bitcoin?

Coin
Explanation