Re: Reminder: zero-conf is not safe; $500USD reward posted for replace-by-fee patch
Personally, I can't want to see it all unfold, and I really, really want to trade some fork coins for original bitcoins.
Indeed, the only known possible counter to MPEX's Gavincoin Short tactic is MAD. (Implying the only way to win is not to play.)
Well, forking bitcoin would be a simple and natural solution to the scaling problem.
"Would be?"
There are hundreds of forks which already provide parallel capacity to augment the Main Chain, LTC being the most significant.
bitcoin is working perfectly. I can easily and securely and almost instantly transfer value equivalent to millions of dollars to anyone anywhere, all for about the price of a 1st class postage stamp.
Indeed, I am convinced that most bitcoiners will not care about a protocol change imposed by a mining cartel, if it does not affect them directly. In fact they will support the cartel and pretend that they approve the change, to preserve the value of their coin. I am pretty certain that you will be among them. If you don't have a problem with 5 pools having 70% of the power, or with the 5$ cost of your transaction being subsidized by investors, or with the growing pyramid of "debt" -- then you surely will not have a problem with a mere postponement of the next halving, or with the extinction of independent relay nodes, for example.
I do have a problem with "the 5$ cost of your transaction being subsidized by investors."
You must have missed my participation in the furious blocksize debate raging in cypherdoc's thread.
TL;DR: My position is the network should be weaned off block subsidies ASAP, by allowing the fee market to mature (IE ossify) at 1MB by charging the highest price the market will bear, rather than continue (via larger blocks) the outrageous undercharging practice whereby users pay a nickle to use 5$ or more with of electricity/infrastructure/C&M/etc.
Sorry, it was my mistake to emphasize the value-transaction aspect of Bitcoin to the exclusion of its primary value-storage function.
Allow me to add:
bitcoin is working perfectly. I can easily and securely and almost instantly store value equivalent to millions of dollars and access it anywhere anytime, all for about the price of a 1st class postage stamp.
The store of value function is why you are wrong about "most bitcoiners" not caring about "a protocol change imposed by a mining cartel."
Perhaps on a one-man-one-vote basis you are right, but the economic power majority of BTC (the whales) are most certainly directly affected by a 70%/5 pool coup attempt.
They simply won't allow it, and will prevent it via the mechanisms graciously explained by Holliday.
For someone who has studied BTC for so long and in such depth, your objections and concerns sound very much like the knee-jerk reactions of someone (very intelligent of course) hearing for the first time about Satoshi's whitepaper.
The system's design accounts for the scenario you believe "could" happen, and its incentive structure was calibrated to keep that theoretical possibility in the realm of imagination.
The 'ZOMGWTF if the top [n] pools collude - BTC is doomed!!1!' FUD has for years been rehashed and debunked.
And yet, there you are, proclaiming the Death Of BitcoinTM for what, the 51st time?
