We agree then, I also think transactional capacity increases utility and utility increases value which increases security, which in turn again increases utility and so forth, a virtuous cycle.You are correct in stating that only a fundamental change could cause a permanent split. The coin quantum is fundamental. The keynesians, who occupy the economist space for the time being, thinks, erroneously, that the money quantum needs to rise continuously.
You are also right that the transactional capacity of the system is not a fundamentally economic parameter. The reason is that the value of money comes from the holding, large or small amounts, for short or long time. The aggregate want, need, and act of holding. For that, transactions are fundamentally only necessary when someone wants to change their holding. Of course, the easier, the better, because with low transaction capacity, such as we have in gold now, someone has to plan some time in advance to adjust his holding. Because of the difficulty to transact, you have to be quite sure that you don't need the resources you can exchange the gold coins for, the next couple of months. So transaction capacity is not a fundamental economic property, but indirect, in that it enables holding more, for a shorter time, and thus enable use for a larger part of the public.
So @VeritasSapereI do not understand why you have such a negative outlook.
Because you think that a split is realistic. I don't think it is even a remote possibility. We either will continue with small blocks for a while, or we get large blocks rather quickly. I think segregated withness is a distraction, I do not think it will do serious harm to the system, I think it will not be used much, maybe removed later. Anyway, in my opinion, there is only one possibility, and that is success.We agree then, I also think transactional capacity increases utility and utility increases value which increases security, which in turn again increases utility and so forth, a virtuous cycle.
I am intrigued, why do you think that I have a negative outlook? Is it because of my recent altcoin evangelism, or because I emphasize Bitcoins ability to split? I have been interested in alternative currencies and had these views on the governance of Bitcoin before this existential crisis began. The ability to split like this has always been one of the things that really drew me to Bitcoin in the first place, because it solves the problem of tyranny of the majority, my thinking is even leading towards putting entire governments onto blockchains. The idea of non geographically bound decentralized and voluntary governments is very fascinating to me.
Though I really am curious, why do you think I have a negative outlook? Since I have always perceived myself as having a rather positive outlook on what is happening here, I still think that the blocksize will be increased and that the governance mechanism will prove itself to work. Though I do have to entertain the possibility that it might not, this is the empirical test of Bitcoin after all, I can not be sure of the result of this experiment, though if I was not as confident of this outcome I would not be holding the amount of Bitcoin that I am, it still represents my largest cryptocurrency holding.
I am not an extremely early adopter though like I suspect many other people on this forum are, so I need to hedge my investments, so that I can continue making a living off cryptocurrency and spend more time on this great forum among other things. I still consider all of us to be early adopters in the grand scheme of things, the sky is the limit.![]()
Made me wonder if there will eventually be a system of payment channel escrow? One channel could effectively underwrite another channel to mutually assure trust. (some sort of multisig channel checkpointing?Meanwhile, thanks to Hearn et al. and now 21inc we have multiple 1-to-1 payment channel systems working already (and with some routing centralization and minor trust requirements) that can already realistically fulfill a large fraction of what LN would be used for - at least initially.
Someone should ask him if he still considers Bitcoin Classic source code to be identical to Core ;-)"Currently Bitcoin Classic's code is identical to Bitcoin Core. In the even that Bitcoin Core promotes a contentious hard fork, the source code will be forked to preserve the classic mode of Bitcoin."