Intentions in Bitcoin development

[ladoga]

To me it looks like the vast majority of Bitcoin market expects to see an increase in blocksize limit. Yet I don't see Core developers really talking about it other than in response to some of development "outcasts" like Gavin Andresen, Mike Hearn and Jeff Garzik.

Are Core developers going to change the blocksize limit or are they simply playing time for other scalability solutions to mature?

Now that disagreeing people are stonewalled from Core it should be easy to form a consensus. (consensus inside the Core, not the network consensus) Why don't they come out with a public statement about their vision of Bitcoin's future or is it simply that they don't want to burn the bridges behind them?

What's your take on this?

 

[Bagatell]

We need more than one blockchain. Given recent events I wont be keeping all my eggs in one basket.

 

[ladoga]

@Bagatell

Would more blockchains mean less secure blockchains? Nodes and hashing power to support them must come from somewhere.

 

[Bagatell]

How much security do you need for the price of a coffee? Do you need more or less security than that to secure your retirement fund. Horses for courses.

 

[AdrianX]

@Bagatell

Would more blockchains mean less secure blockchains? Nodes and hashing power to support them must come from somewhere.

Assuming more blockchains means more Alts.

Blockchains with PoW have just enough secretary. It's just during the early adoption stages that you need additional security to protect them while the network grows.

I like the idea of more but I don't see them as a sure investment hedge.

 

[AdrianX]

How much security do you need for the price of a coffee? Do you need more or less security than that to secure your retirement fund. Horses for courses.

I've heard coffee is one of the largest traded commodities second only to oil and more liquid than gold. (wow – that’s crazy pun)

So I did a little digging to understand the economic impact of this idea that “Bitcoin is wasted if it’s used to buy coffee.” I was looking to get a high level understanding of the economic impact coffee may have being a highly traded commodity.

The economics of which I don’t think small block proponents understand. And it’s particularly ironic given Bitcoin is a Value Exchange Protocol that regulates economic activities in a manner defined by typical Austrian Economists. Yet the typical small block proponent (vocal Core developer included) believes they have a point when they say that Bitcoin security is wasted on buying coffee. That position happens to be a value judgments on the legitimate uses of Bitcoin excluding an estimated $90-billion-a-year industry for a commodity that supports an estimated 75milion people mossy of whom are unbanked. – (ideal market demand for Bitcoin if you ask me)


A little googling presented this article that seemed well researched and balanced

http://www.dimattinacoffee.com.au/blog/entry/coffee_second_only_to_oil_is_coffee_really_the_second_largest_commodity

It looks like coffee is a rather small raw commodity of just $22 billion per year, nothing compared to oil. but when you think each $0.03* of which winds up in a cup of coffee, it is still an industry many magnitudes bigger than Bitcoins market cap, and it's just the tip of the coffee economy that is at least 5 x bigger than the annual total trade in the commodity.

I for one would love to see Bitcoin scale to the challenge and see entrepreneurs (BlockStreams included) try and bite of a chunk of that market.

tl;dr Anyone who is actively trying to prevent Bitcoin from scaling because they don’t think one of the world most traded commodities should be sold for Bitcoin because it is a waste of blockchain space is a hindrance. And indirectly they are supporting the idea of a central planned economy over a free market one built on top of Bitcoin.


*17.8 billion pounds exported by farmers
Market Cap. estimate $90 billion (~5 x markup from raw commodity)
Cost per pound - bean in cup retail $0.15

 

[Bagatell]

I obviously didn't make my point. The change I use to buy my desert like beverages I keep in my pocket. Security cost zero. I already paid for my pants to secure my booty. My retirement fund (such as it is) is in a bank vault which has costs running to millions once construction, guards, and other overheads are considered. That's OK it's worth it.
Scaling used in this context suffers from the same misinterpretations as inflation. How many transactions per second will you need to corner the coffee market or buy that second aircraft carrier? Not many but you sure as hell want more security than your pants pocket provide. How many transactions per second does Starbucks need to serve all their customers? A lot more than Adrian Bunker Hunt obviously, but pocket change security will suffice.
Casting aspersions on your protagonists does your argument no favours, it merely lowers you to their level.

 

[ladoga]

Makes sense.

I guess what AdrianX means is that the collective effect of everyone losing their "coffee money" would be huge. It's not like only you would lose your money if the network is compromised. Which one has more wealth tied into it, global day to day transactions or retirement funds? (I have no idea.)

 

[AdrianX]

@Bagatell I think your method for securing change is great. it's not going to work for Bitcoin byou can use it to secure your printed private keys.

Coffee and aircraft carriers are end products that are produced by economic action, they don’t just happen to pop into existence at the point when you buy one.

Coffee is no less a valid economic output than an aircraft carrier. There is a diverse and complicated economy of billions of transactions of value exchange that supports each output.

In the case with coffee value is exchanged from a big lump into smaller and smaller denominations so the majority of transactions happen at the point of sale. As opposed to the aircraft carrier it starts out with a bunch of people drinking coffee and exchanging value in small denominations and ending in bigger and bigger bundles and a fewer transactions at the point of sale.

If your just measuring the security needed for the final sale you have to ignore the economy where value is exchanged. Given Bitcoins security will come from fees after is been subsidized by inflation many small transactions seem more useful over fewer big ones.

To keep this on topic, if bitcoin is to become a dominant global money, some developers intend to switch Bitcoin the Money to some Money substitute? when should that point be in the economy and if its value driven how should that value be determined?

 

[cbeast]

If Bitcoin security tokens represent goods and services, then it will become a reserve currency representing a basketful of goods akin to Nash's Ideal Money.

 

[AdrianX]

I've heard coffee is one of the largest traded commodities second only to oil and more liquid than gold. (wow – that’s crazy pun)

So I did a little digging to understand the economic impact of this idea that “Bitcoin is wasted if it’s used to buy coffee.” I was looking to get a high level understanding of the economic impact coffee may have being a highly traded commodity.

The economics of which I don’t think small block proponents understand. And it’s particularly ironic given Bitcoin is a Value Exchange Protocol that regulates economic activities in a manner defined by typical Austrian Economists. Yet the typical small block proponent (vocal Core developer included) believes they have a point when they say that Bitcoin security is wasted on buying coffee. That position happens to be a value judgments on the legitimate uses of Bitcoin excluding an estimated $90-billion-a-year industry for a commodity that supports an estimated 75milion people mossy of whom are unbanked. – (ideal market demand for Bitcoin if you ask me)


A little googling presented this article that seemed well researched and balanced

http://www.dimattinacoffee.com.au/blog/entry/coffee_second_only_to_oil_is_coffee_really_the_second_largest_commodity

It looks like coffee is a rather small raw commodity of just $22 billion per year, nothing compared to oil. but when you think each $0.03* of which winds up in a cup of coffee, it is still an industry many magnitudes bigger than Bitcoins market cap, and it's just the tip of the coffee economy that is at least 5 x bigger than the annual total trade in the commodity.

I for one would love to see Bitcoin scale to the challenge and see entrepreneurs (BlockStreams included) try and bite of a chunk of that market.

tl;dr Anyone who is actively trying to prevent Bitcoin from scaling because they don’t think one of the world most traded commodities should be sold for Bitcoin because it is a waste of blockchain space is a hindrance. And indirectly they are supporting the idea of a central planned economy over a free market one built on top of Bitcoin.


*17.8 billion pounds exported by farmers
Market Cap. estimate $90 billion (~5 x markup from raw commodity)
Cost per pound - bean in cup retail $0.15

@Mengerian fyi I think if Bitcoin was only ever used for coffee it would be a great use case that would empower over 7,000,000 of the un-banked.