Quote from: Fatman3001 on October 19, 2015, 06:57:50 AM

Quote from: brg444 on October 19, 2015, 06:47:24 AM

Quote from: Cconvert2G36 on October 19, 2015, 06:38:18 AM

Quote from: brg444 on October 19, 2015, 06:23:39 AM

Quote from: Cconvert2G36 on October 19, 2015, 06:18:03 AM

Quote from: brg444 on October 19, 2015, 06:02:05 AM

Quote from: Cconvert2G36 on October 19, 2015, 05:56:14 AM

Quote from: brg444 on October 19, 2015, 05:52:26 AM

Which one is it then? Cap or no cap?

Do you oppose central control or do you not?

Personally, I think that sufficient incentives exist that the network of miners could be self governing wrt max_block_size.

Realistically, I'll take a half measure to help assuage the doubts of the fearful.

Alright. Let me jump in with my favorite analogy then.

Seeing as we love all things free market then let me ask: are you of the opinion that the network of logging companies & cattle farmers should be left to self-governance in regards to how much of the Amazon rain forest they can cut?

Sounds like we need a strong military with lots of guns to point at them. And maybe Beefstream could get involved with setting production quotas. (While marketing their tasty soy, pea protein, alternative.)

I know it will upset stolfi to hear, he may even tell me to burn in hell, but land owners should be free to destroy/nurture/defile/build and grow/harvest their own property as they choose.

Now returning to your regularly scheduled chartbuddy streak.

Land owners? Cheesy

Surely you are not proposing these companies are legitimate owners of all this rain forest they are cutting down.

Anyway, I see you didn't quite get the idea I was attempting to get through to you.

How about big game hunters? No reason we should enforce laws about this right? I'm guessing you are fine with them self-governing the hunting of endangered species?

You've replaced one bad analogy with another. Both reeking of statist sentiment.

Bigger blocks aren't going to destroy the rainforest and kill endangered species, and you should be ashamed for using such comparisons. Mircea would be appalled. The decentralized relay network is an asset to the miners, they would be fools to destroy it.

I mean it this time chartbuddy.

Who said they'd destroy it?

Given the incentives under a unlimited block size what'll happen is they will slowly but surely bloat it until it eventually becomes so large that only large datacenters will be able to act as peers on the network. It's a very simple dynamic but one that necessarily leads to capture of the network by the same statists you resent.

What happened to your analogy? Is the rainforest and endangered species of the world going to remain untouched, but we'll see forests bloated with wild game and cattle carcasses?

Negative externalities may be a foreign concept to you?

In the case of rain forests it concerns the destruction of the ecosystem and numerous other consequences that ensue. As for Bitcoin it relates to the externalization of costs to nodes, in other words destruction of the decentralization.