We can at least agree that bitcoin WAS designed for mass transaction.
We can now disagree on the fact that satoshi was wrong and that it cannot be Or that the decision cannot be taken now.
So when do you think we should start raising blocksize? In a year? 2? why ?
Topic: Why BitcoinXT Must Never Gain Consensus (Read 1798 times)
If the large companies in the Bitcoin space can decide by majority vote (not consensus) to change the protocol, then the governments those same companies are regulated by can force those commercial entities to regulate the Bitcoin protocol. It will no longer be an apolitical protocol that runs on consensus.
Bitcoin is driven by economic incentives and market forces. Raising the blocksize limit has an obvious economic incentives for businesses and miners. Governments can't do shit about it.
There are so many thing going on in the world, you just can't draw a straight line from cause to effect, but I seriously doubt, that this debate has much to do, with the price movement.
so your argument for why BitcoinXT Must Never Gain Consensus is that it would allow it to potentially compete with Visa?
Well I am convinced. I would much rather pay a 3% tx fee to visa in the forum of higher prices then pay around $0.04 in tx fees to the miners, especially for thousand dollar transactions. pay more for less, FUCKING BRILLIANT
Nobody wants that tho. Raising the block size now is not needed now. It wont be needed for at least a year or two.
Raising it so aggressively to 8GB so fast as Gavin/Hearn intend is bad.
That is exactly the point. If we need it in a year, we have to make the preparations now. You just can't switch a global system over from one day to another, you should plan at least 6 months for that.
If the large companies in the Bitcoin space can decide by majority vote (not consensus) to change the protocol, then the governments those same companies are regulated by can force those commercial entities to regulate the Bitcoin protocol. It will no longer be an apolitical protocol that runs on consensus.
Bitcoin is driven by economic incentives and market forces. Raising the blocksize limit has an obvious economic incentives for businesses and miners. Governments can't do shit about it.
What are governments waiting for to regulate the internet to death? They can't for the same reasons they won't be able with bitcoin.
If the large companies in the Bitcoin space can decide by majority vote (not consensus) to change the protocol, then the governments those same companies are regulated by can force those commercial entities to regulate the Bitcoin protocol. It will no longer be an apolitical protocol that runs on consensus.
Bitcoin is driven by economic incentives and market forces. Raising the blocksize limit has an obvious economic incentives for businesses and miners. Governments can't do shit about it.
Visa currently has a transaction processing capability of 50,000 per second. If this 8GB blocksize were to be instantiated, then bitcoin would potentially be able to compete with the likes of traditional payment systems, but is that what it has been originally designed for?
Yes.
Quote from: satoshi
In a few decades when the reward gets too small, the transaction fee will become the main compensation for nodes. I'm sure that in 20 years there will either be very large (bitcoin) transaction volume or no volume.
Bitcoin is driven by economic incentives and market forces. Raising the blocksize limit has an obvious economic incentives for businesses and miners. Governments can't do shit about it.
Visa currently has a transaction processing capability of 50,000 per second. If this 8GB blocksize were to be instantiated, then bitcoin would potentially be able to compete with the likes of traditional payment systems, but is that what it has been originally designed for?
Yes.
Quote from: satoshi
In a few decades when the reward gets too small, the transaction fee will become the main compensation for nodes. I'm sure that in 20 years there will either be very large (bitcoin) transaction volume or no volume.
so your argument for why BitcoinXT Must Never Gain Consensus is that it would allow it to potentially compete with Visa?
Well I am convinced. I would much rather pay a 3% tx fee to visa in the forum of higher prices then pay around $0.04 in tx fees to the miners, especially for thousand dollar transactions. pay more for less, FUCKING BRILLIANT
Nobody wants that tho. Raising the block size now is not needed now. It wont be needed for at least a year or two.
Raising it so aggressively to 8GB so fast as Gavin/Hearn intend is bad.
Nobody wants what?
i also agree Gavin/Hearn fix seems like overkill, all we should really be trying to get out of this mod is a quick fix not a be all end all solution to scalability
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1008
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
so your argument for why BitcoinXT Must Never Gain Consensus is that it would allow it to potentially compete with Visa?
Well I am convinced. I would much rather pay a 3% tx fee to visa in the forum of higher prices then pay around $0.04 in tx fees to the miners, especially for thousand dollar transactions. pay more for less, FUCKING BRILLIANT
Nobody wants that tho. Raising the block size now is not needed now. It wont be needed for at least a year or two.
Raising it so aggressively to 8GB so fast as Gavin/Hearn intend is bad.
Nobody wants what?
so your argument for why BitcoinXT Must Never Gain Consensus is that it would allow it to potentially compete with Visa?
Well I am convinced. I would much rather pay a 3% tx fee to visa in the forum of higher prices then pay around $0.04 in tx fees to the miners, especially for thousand dollar transactions. pay more for less, FUCKING BRILLIANT
Nobody wants that tho. Raising the block size now is not needed now. It wont be needed for at least a year or two.
Raising it so aggressively to 8GB so fast as Gavin/Hearn intend is bad.
And how do you know exactly if the big players supporting BIP101 aren't ready to mass marketeer their products?
so your argument for why BitcoinXT Must Never Gain Consensus is that it would allow it to potentially compete with Visa?
Well I am convinced. I would much rather pay a 3% tx fee to visa in the forum of higher prices then pay around $0.04 in tx fees to the miners, especially for thousand dollar transactions. pay more for less, FUCKING BRILLIANT
Nobody wants that tho. Raising the block size now is not needed now. It wont be needed for at least a year or two.
Raising it so aggressively to 8GB so fast as Gavin/Hearn intend is bad.
so your argument for why BitcoinXT Must Never Gain Consensus is that it would allow it to potentially compete with Visa?
Well I am convinced. I would much rather pay a 3% tx fee to visa in the forum of higher prices then pay around $0.04 in tx fees to the miners, especially for thousand dollar transactions. pay more for less, FUCKING BRILLIANT
In the end of the day, the funny thing is that visa net does not make payments. Its a reporting network only. It moves not a single dollar. I dont know why I think that is significant in the context of everyone comparing ti to bitcoin - a digital peer-to-peer cash payment system.
Visa currently has a transaction processing capability of 50,000 per second. If this 8GB blocksize were to be instantiated, then bitcoin would potentially be able to compete with the likes of traditional payment systems, but is that what it has been originally designed for?
...
– Nick Szabo, August 21, 2015
...
– Nick Szabo, August 21, 2015
It was actually designed to do even more. It was designed also to make payments cheaper than Visa to permit "small casual transactions" online too.
Source: https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf
When "it was actually designed" the distinction between bitcoin-the-blockchain-based-technology and Bitcoin-the-canonical-implementation-of-bitcoin" didn't exit.
E-cash in general, thanks to Bitcoin/bitcoin, has already enabled payments cheaper (because non-reversible if nothing else) than Visa. It costs almost nothing to send Primecoins, Litecoins, etc.
As it matures, Bitcoin-the-coin will naturally exclude marginal use cases better served by alt/side/off chain processors.
so your argument for why BitcoinXT Must Never Gain Consensus is that it would allow it to potentially compete with Visa?
Well I am convinced. I would much rather pay a 3% tx fee to visa in the forum of higher prices then pay around $0.04 in tx fees to the miners, especially for thousand dollar transactions. pay more for less, FUCKING BRILLIANT
so your argument for why BitcoinXT Must Never Gain Consensus is that it would allow it to potentially compete with Visa?
Well I am convinced. I would much rather pay a 3% tx fee to visa in the forum of higher prices then pay around $0.04 in tx fees to the miners, especially for thousand dollar transactions. legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1008
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
so your argument for why BitcoinXT Must Never Gain Consensus is that it would allow it to potentially compete with Visa?
Why don't you actually read the article before posting such a shallow comment?
Based on your signature, it sounds like you're interested more in pimping that site than anything else.
The article isn't convincing me. For example, it says we will have problems with transaction
throughput. Which is basically saying : Don't remove one bottleneck because there might be
another one to contend with.
Nice try. Thanks for playing.
Adopting the bitcoinxt fork will make the incentives for miners in the form of transaction fees miniscule
That's why several mining pools are supporting the 8mb proposal. They must be looking forward to receiving "miniscule" amounts of fees. Oh wait, that makes no sense whatsoever.
Also:
- Assume Network 'A' can process a maximum of 2500 transactions per block and the average fee is .0001
Assume Network 'B' can process a maximum of 20000 transactions per block and the average fee is .00005
Which network can potentially generate a higher amount in fees? That's right, the one that can support more transactions. Learn to math plz. Clearly the miners who support the fork have done their homework and understand basic numeracy.
Small casual transactions can be built ontop of the main bitcoin blockchain once those solutions are developed. Molding the main payment layer of the blockchain into something which can pay for small purchases such as coffee will ruin the main monetary uses of bitcoin.
You mean it will ruin "your" main monetary uses of Bitcoin. If a majority support the fork, maybe their main monetary use includes small purchases and they don't want some elitist telling what they can and can't do in a permissionless system. If your uses aren't compatible with that, maybe this isn't the project you thought it was.
I stopped reading after you told me to "learn to math" after conjuring up your own silly equation.
so your argument for why BitcoinXT Must Never Gain Consensus is that it would allow it to potentially compete with Visa?
Why don't you actually read the article before posting such a shallow comment?
If bitcoin is to reach its full potential, it needs the ability to handle larger transaction volumes, plain and simple. There is no way around that. So we need a solution to this problem. XT is the best proposal right now, and speaking of satoshi afaik he never intended for the block size to stay small. Sidechains might be promising, but are not a solution right now. They are unproven.
Quote
Visa currently has a transaction processing capability of 50,000 per second. If this 8GB blocksize were to be instantiated, then bitcoin would potentially be able to compete with the likes of traditional payment systems, but is that what it has been originally designed for?
In the light of the precedent post showing some very interesting writing of Satoshi, can we at least agree on a "YES" as an answer?[EDIT]
this will be my sig for now on
That would be a much more honest move, than to deny things that are written in the Whitepaper.
-snip-
Which network can potentially generate a higher amount in fees? That's right, the one that can support more transactions. Learn to math plz. Clearly the miners who support the fork have done their homework and understand basic numeracy.
-snip-
- Assume Network 'A' can process a maximum of 2500 transactions per block and the average fee is .0001
Assume Network 'B' can process a maximum of 20000 transactions per block and the average fee is .00005
Which network can potentially generate a higher amount in fees? That's right, the one that can support more transactions. Learn to math plz. Clearly the miners who support the fork have done their homework and understand basic numeracy.
-snip-
This is what I think that miners would be the major players on making decisions because bigger blocks would give them bigger rewards.
Jump to: