Ninjastic
PostEdited versionsQuotes to this post
Post
Topic
Board Bitcoin Discussion
Re: Bitcoin XT - Officially #REKT (also goes for BIP101 fraud)
by
VeritasSapere
on 25/09/2015, 14:54:38 UTC
Quote from: DooMAD on September 25, 2015, 01:49:43 PM
Quote from: brg444 on September 24, 2015, 11:32:29 PM
Quote from: jonald_fyookball on September 24, 2015, 11:05:41 PM
Quote from: brg444 on September 24, 2015, 10:49:23 PM


Look Peter it's quite simple, either you accept that for the block size to increase consensus needs to be reach by all actors of the Bitcoin market or you continue pretending that the demand of consumers & merchants for lower cost transactions will move the needle which it won't in that case if they "fork" it will be in their own cheap little altcoin.


You love going around in circles, don't you?  

As knight22 already explained a few times, there's no such thing as perfect consensus.

Do you refuse to accept the possibility that an economic majority will have their way and increase the blocksize even though you don't agree?

 Undecided

The economic majority is the one most interested in keeping the block size small.

The XT #REKT event should have made that clear.

Consumers and merchants are never going to be the economic majority in Bitcoin

Not by themselves, perhaps, but throw a few others into the mix and the picture starts to look a little different.


Larger (than 1MB) blocks will naturally provide benefit to:

    Anyone who wants to use Bitcoin as a payments network
    VC investors
    Miners
    Merchants
    Payment processors
    Average users in general

Smaller blocks will naturally provide benefit to:

    Those who want to use Bitcoin as an asset class (i.e. not the average user)
    Those wanting to run full nodes cheaply (i.e. not the average user)
    Those who don't care if the average user is priced off the main chain (i.e. definitely not the average user)

Pretty sure that first group will agree on a proposal before too long.  We'll see if you're right about them not being an economic majority.  
I agree with this statement except for one of the points, smaller blocks does not make Bitcoin a better asset class. The blocksize has absolutely no relationship to how Bitcoin functions as a commodity. Actually it can be argued that smaller blocks will reduce the value of Bitcoin as a commodity since this would also reduce the utility of Bitcoin.

Just to be clear with everyone here, a commodity can also be used as a currency, precious metals in the form ancient coins have served this purpose for humanity for millennia. It has only been in the last century that currency has been separated from also being a commodity, which is why some people might still cling on to this flawed idea that we have inherited from fiat. Which is that Bitcoin must either be a commodity or a currency, this is not the case because the reality is that Bitcoin can do both things just like gold and silver coins did in the ancient world.