Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[lunar]

my point is node costs matter

where do you draw the line?
we only have to worry about big business being able to run a node?
and why are we doing this?
is including GB of spam ( less then 1cent TX fees ) worth it?

Seems to me you are having a crisis of faith.

If you accept the fact there is a real cost to adding and permanently storing a transaction in the blockchain, then there must be a point where it reaches equilibrium (however micro, be it minute electricity costs, bandwidth or hard drive space) At this equilibrium (value returned from adding a Tx to the blockchain = marginal cost to store and propagate said Tx) Core would say this point is $100's/$1000's whereas i'd say its milli or micro $cents. Point being, nobody knows, as it's impossible to be certain about the future.

If you agree with the argument above, it leaves two options as a way to prevent uneconomically viable uses of the blockchain. You either set a minimum relay fee (maybe even some smart algorithmic approximation) or you have no limit, and leave it up to the free market to decide the value/cost of the multitude of interconnected component parts.

Complex systems such as bitcoin have so many value related variables, it's impossible to calculate these costs a priori, any attempt to do so will almost certainly lead to a misallocation of resources. This very problem causes even the most well intentioned governments to fund spectacular wastes of money projects. 'The seen and unseen costs'

Trust in these mechanisms of free market governance; trust that they will ascribe the appropriate cost/value to the critical infrastructure (nodes, storage, propagation etc) is implicit in the use of Bitcoin as a decentralised system. Keep the faith - free markets will find a solution, and ascribe a price, if there is a need or demand.

One further observation; is that people often appear to forget there are individual people at the other end of software line, making personal, cost/benefit decisions. It should be no surprise to learn that Newton was also an economist "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction" The free market will find an equilibrium, but this may at first appear like chaotic oscillations from our perspective.

If you look carefully you can already see this beginning in the BCH mempool. Certain miners are not collecting all the 0 fee transactions. It's an immature market right now, but eventually this feedback mechanism will solve the problem of what is 'allowed' in the blockchain and what is not.

I have faith ;-)

 

[Dusty]

Bitcoin Diamond Hard Fork Successful - 4th New Bitcoin 90% People Dont Know About This...

Most people do not even know that the network does not exists, and no sources of the node is published (probably because the "devs" are not able to clone a github repo).

 

[lunar]

In other free market news. This happened.

https://ecomotoringnews.com/2017/11/24/bitcoin-mining-in-electric-vehicles-raises-other-questions/

Dear Mr Musk the solution to your problem, smart meters and bitcoin wallets in each car.

 

[Richy_T]

Hmm. Not sure if this means much yet but I haven't been keeping my eye on Chartbuddy much recently and when I just checked, it appears that sometime on the 10th of November, Bitfinex suddenly stopped returning anywhere near the book data that they used to for BTCUSD.

3:02pm

6:02pm

And yes, I need to fix that scaling issue. Maybe. Interestingly, the amount of data returned from GDAX has also ballooned. From around 1/2MB at the beginning of 2016 to nearly 2 currently (this is begining to cause me storage issues. Probably time for another HDD. Or maybe I should just give a 75% discount to Bitstamp data.)

Edit: Looks like it's just that they reduced the default on that API call. Probably cause they're moving to v2.

[doublepost=1511899789][/doublepost]

In other free market news. This happened.

https://ecomotoringnews.com/2017/11/24/bitcoin-mining-in-electric-vehicles-raises-other-questions/

Dear Mr Musk the solution to your problem, smart meters and bitcoin wallets in each car.

Already f*ed up GPU buying, now let's f* up electric cars too. What's next?

 

[freetrader]

Dear Mr Musk the solution to your problem, smart meters and bitcoin wallets in each car.

New meaning to the phrase "my bitcoin wallet just crashed".

 

[molecular]

^ also new meaning to the phrase: "I got the fastest miner available".

 

[albin]

Most people do not even know that the network does not exists, and no sources of the node is published (probably because the "devs" are not able to clone a github repo).

There isn't even a repo I can find for Bitcoin Gold's version of Electrum.

The website for "Electron Gold" is just a shameless copy/paste of Electron Cash, complete with still saying that the binaries are signed by Jonald Fyookball, and they link to the Electron Cash repo!

 

[awemany]

People generally don't like to be responsible for their own decisions.

When the next Bitcoin price crash comes, there will be a great (and correct) opportunity to assign blame this time. This will feel like lifting the burden of responsibility, which I suspect way too many of the current Bitcoin buyers will welcome, as a psychological alleviation of their situation then.

Now, I like to be productive and also do not want to incite a violent mob against certain folks in this space.

Even though the underlying reason of Bitcoin being unusable is clearly social in the end, I think the best course of action for BCH and sanity of the whole space would be to simplify this to assigning blame onto the Bitcoin legacy technology, namely the blocksize limit.

I think there's an absolutely excellent opportunity for BCH there.

The most effective tactic at this stage for BCH supporters is likely one of asking newbies: "Did you ever try using your Bitcoin 1.0?"

 

[go1111111]

Trust in these mechanisms of free market governance; trust that they will ascribe the appropriate cost/value to the critical infrastructure (nodes, storage, propagation etc) is implicit in the use of Bitcoin as a decentralised system. Keep the faith - free markets will find a solution, and ascribe a price, if there is a need or demand.

The problem is that transactions have externalities. The miner who mines a txn pays only the cost to himself of validating and storing it. The total cost to everyone is multiplied by everyone who validates and stores it. This is why "let's let the free market determine the block size" is not a slam dunk argument. It might still be fine if the externalities are low enough, but my bet is that having some sort of adjustable block size (either via hard forks, miner voting, or some algorithm) is the best solution.

 

[albin]

@go1111111

Miners also provide a positive externality by making the transactions even possible in the first place. The entire system functions in the first place because of positive externalities allowing certain functionality to exist because of the self interest of other parties.You could just as easily argue that block size caps coddle full nodes with subsidy at the expense of miners and people making transactions.

How do you actually quantify any of this?

 

[adamstgbit]

this is hilarious


make sure to click the setting icon and selecting 2x video speed.

 

[adamstgbit]

If you agree with the argument above, it leaves two options as a way to prevent uneconomically viable uses of the blockchain.

i want to prevent economically viable uses of the blockchain, not just uneconomically uses...
and for that i need a blocksize limit
i have 2 reasons for this
1) increasing miner revenue through some mild fee pressure. ( min 1cent fees)
2) prevent spam from increasing blocksize to high to fast.

set a minimum relay fee (maybe even some smart algorithmic approximation) or you have no limit, and leave it up to the free market to decide the value/cost of the multitude of interconnected component parts.

i do not trust that all miners will consider the networks best interest when including TX in blocks.
or more to the point, i feel this "let it be" strategy will mean blocksize / min fee, will be determined by the lowest common denominator, the one miner willing to include 500MB of pure (economically viable) spam ruins it for everyone else.
with a dynamic blocksize limit, we know that at least 51% of the network agrees with the current blocksize / min fee limit.

we cannot say that >51% of miners agree that a 1GB block filled with pure spam was "OK", if we do not give them the tools required to reject such a block.

Trust in these mechanisms of free market governance; trust that they will ascribe the appropriate cost/value to the critical infrastructure (nodes, storage, propagation etc) is implicit in the use of Bitcoin as a decentralised system. Keep the faith - free markets will find a solution, and ascribe a price, if there is a need or demand.

all i what to do is give the free market tools so it can be more efficient.

think of dynamic block size, like this... there is no limit per say, its just that miners use a tool to collectively agree what constitutes an invalid block because "it was way to spammy"

you may not like the idea that the market will be given the ability to effectively set a min TX fee, you may not agree with the min TX fee, "the market" current has set. but at that point you'll be fighting the honey badger

 

[adamstgbit]

now... lets talk about how to simplify BU EC and bring it to market.

step 1 remove AD
step 2 recompile.
done.

 

[megadeth]

Going to have a few billionaires here soon.
New world order

 

[NewLiberty]

The nodes operated by major exchanges and payment processors matter.

Albeit these nodes mostly matter to the businesses funding them. It is a business decision incorporating risk and profit. Some have done quite poorly irrespective of their running their own full nodes. I'm left to wonder if some of the more spectacular failures might have been better if others had run their nodes instead.

 

[Christoph Bergmann]

Because SPV nodes are unable to verify if new coins are created out of thin air?

I think there needs to be a sane ratio between full and spv nodes, to ensure connectivity and make attacks on spv privacy at least harder

 

[sickpig]

Bitcoin Unlimited has published near-mid term BitcoinCash development plan

https://np.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/7gcplc/bitcoin_unlimited_has_published_nearmid_term/

 

[torusJKL]

Thanks @sickpig

It's great to see those 2 predefined hard fork dates.
I see a bright future for Bitcoin Cash no matter if it is the majority chain or not.

Here a direct link: https://www.bitcoinunlimited.info/cash-development-plan

 

[lunar]

@go1111111 Every part of the system has externalities, it's the feedback from these externalities that sets the price. I prefer a more holistic approach.

i want to prevent economically viable uses of the blockchain

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this point. I personally don't think the protocol level is the right place to make these rules. WeChat is probably better.

i do not trust that all miners will consider the networks best interest when including TX in blocks. //..
all i what to do is give the free market tools so it can be more efficient.

We have to trust that 51% are intelligently profit seeking, hence I'd presume, if a rouge large block was attempted it would be orphaned, (either deliberately by others, or as a result of processing speeds). Still giving miners the tools to coordinate in a style like EC is to my mind, the best strategy so far devised. Perhaps some kind of blocksize Bandpass filter? It would nice to see some zero fee transactions getting through, especially at off peak times.

 

[Tomothy]

What's up with changing the time between blocks? This seems like breaking of the 10 minute canon. Am I missing something? Can anyone point me to where this was discussed? First time I've seen this which feels odd as it's already set as an action item. Like, wtf? Is this Daa all over again? Address change all over again? Cmon. Seriously.