Quote from: brg444 on September 24, 2015, 03:25:27 AM

Quote from: knight22 on September 24, 2015, 03:22:07 AM

Quote from: brg444 on September 24, 2015, 12:04:39 AM

Quote from: knight22 on September 23, 2015, 11:52:51 PM

Quote from: brg444 on September 23, 2015, 11:46:51 PM

Quote from: knight22 on September 23, 2015, 11:30:13 PM

Quote from: brg444 on September 23, 2015, 11:25:47 PM

Quote from: knight22 on September 23, 2015, 11:16:12 PM

Quote from: brg444 on September 23, 2015, 11:14:22 PM

Quote from: knight22 on September 23, 2015, 11:09:58 PM

Quote from: Peter R on September 23, 2015, 10:59:51 PM

Quote from: brg444 on September 23, 2015, 08:55:11 PM

Well would you look at that, even people within your own little circle jerk are calling you out on your myopic conceptualization of the economy.

Don't you think maybe it's time you exit the vacuum and see if your economic theories apply in the real world?

If you read the thread, you'd see that I posted a two-sentence "proof" (<-- I used the scare quotes to indicate that it probably wasn't a proof), and then asked people to poke holes in it.

I agree with @molecular. The economic pressure can also be relieved, for example, by people voluntarily leaving the economic system. This would drop the supply curve such that it meets the demand curve at a point near the quota (Qmax).

What is interesting, is that either way (by fork or by people leaving the system), somehow the result is that Q* ends up to the left of Qmax! If this simple result is true, it would imply that it is not possible to use a block size limit to drive up fees.

Of course if bitcoin becomes too much expensive to use other cheaper systems will get their shares of the market reducing the usage of bitcoin. I don't see how this could be good for bitcoin in any possible way.

It is good because Bitcoin was never about serving the cheap transactions market. People who cannot pay for the security and censorship-resistance it offers are not valuable clients.

Here again:

Quote from: Peter R on September 23, 2015, 10:59:51 PM

What is interesting, is that either way (by fork or by people leaving the system), somehow the result is that Q* ends up to the left of Qmax! If this simple result is true, it would imply that it is not possible to use a block size limit to drive up fees.

It also means less people will indirectly hold bitcoins.

The result is not true so I'm not even sure why you would bring this up. Trace Mayer even addressed this exact situation during the interview:

Quote

Another thing that's interesting to look at is looking at a chart, not just of transactions but of transaction fees normalized to USD and comparing that chart to the market cap of Bitcoin. You know what? The market cap follows almost exactly how much people are willing to spend on transaction fees. So the conclusion we can draw is the more people are willing to spend the higher market cap. Then we get to see who's actually willing to pay to use it. That's a hard cost that people incur using the Bitcoin network.

I think it's great to see more hard cost because then we get to filter who the real users are because they are willing to pay money to use it.

Yeah sure but the real question is how much money they will be willing to pay when there are cheaper alternatives that offers the exact same features around the corner?

Great way to push bitcoin to be a real failure.

So your whole argument hangs on the premise that some imaginary crypto will come through, sponsored by corporations and banks, and will steal Bitcoin's lunch money?

Where does your delusion stops Huh

A cheaper proposition doesn't need to be sponsored by anybody. Do you know how cheap it is to copy open code and tweak it? The economics and incentives at play will just work by itself.
Do you know how many altcoins are there waiting to catch some spectrum of the market bitcoin would miss? http://coinmarketcap.com/

Bitcoin is not alone and will never be. It needs to compete in terms of value proposition in all. possible. ways. or it will just lose that market share.

That is precisely why you are abjectly wrong.

A ton of altcoin exists right now with enormously more transaction throughput yet not one of them is challenging Bitcoin.

I'm starting to figure you will never understand this but the people who give Bitcoin its value, the holders, the "bitcoin rich list", could not careless about the transaction throughput or higher transaction fees. They will not be driven away from their investment because some noobs complain that they have to pay more than a penny for their transactions to go through.

Without these people it doesn't matter if you altcoin can do 1 trillion transactions a second because it is worthless as no serious investors has any interest holding it on the long term.

No altcoin is actually challenging bitcoin simply because bitcoin already offers everything users and businesses needs at a competitive cost but the day the price of conducting transactions will rise, things will change. There will be an economic incentive to use another system that is simply cheaper, faster that has less friction. Why use bitcoin then as money then? Because it has a 21M limit herp derp?

Holding a useless thing does not make that thing valuable or tulips and Bernie babies would still be on the moon. You can continue to think so and ignore the reality though but the reality won't ignore you.

Read this post here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1162684.msg12506336#msg12506336 let it sink in and until you can present a cogent reply to it then I am not wasting my time with you anymore.

Your whole post does not take care of the competitive environment bitcoin is facing. Top kek.

You should revise it otherwise it is completely meaningless because it misses a whole bunch of variables.