I hear talking like the big guys we are here to defeat: this is not the FED.
If the economy goes wrong then let's give them some QE, then after a while QE2, then QE3 and so forth.
If we start raising the block size it will be like that in a way: tomorrow 2MB, in one week 4MB, you understand the trick.
This is not the $ and never it will be.
If the economy goes wrong then let's give them some QE, then after a while QE2, then QE3 and so forth.
If we start raising the block size it will be like that in a way: tomorrow 2MB, in one week 4MB, you understand the trick.
This is not the $ and never it will be.
If it's needed to bring adoption forward then go ahead. Bitcoin will never succeed when adoption is hindered effectively. Sure there are potential problems, one has to deal with it like it happened all the time. And suddenly an arbitrarely setting becomes a breaking stone.
To me there's one fundamental assumption to make: this coin is made of 21 millions pieces. We can break it into more digits but we will always have 21 mln unless we don't super hard fork it.
Let's not be unrealistic: BTC is not for mass adoption. This is what I wanted to say in regard to my dollar metaphor.
And, look, I'm not saying problems require to be left on their own but more thank a block size, hard fork debate I see different people's opinions having battles.
I always hear this comparision. The 21 million bitcoins was a core stone on the fundamental of the protocol. Mainly to ensure a protection against inflation. And now there really are a lot of people who dare to compare the 1mb temporary spam protection setting with this fundamental? And they even claim it's on the same level. Really unbelieveable.
I see this fight, way too often fought with fears, the problem is nobody knows the future and only can guess about it. So everyone feels strongly he is right because his reality has come to realization for sure.
Well, time will tell and i think the development of bitcoin will move on lastly based on the user bases wishes. And the past has shown that the users rarely want to adopt sidesystems beside of bitcoin. They want bitcoin, when bitcoin isn't working then they will take the fix offered. Well, that might be an alternative payment system where you have to bind your bitcoins into some payment channels or the promise of another bitcoin client who fixes the problem. I think it's not hard to guess what most users will chose.
It's way too hard to argue what bitcoin was meant for. For me it's clear that satoshi wanted to empower the people to be freed from the power of banks. Which only makes sense with adoption. Even his plans on how miners will be rewarded make very sure what he thought should happen. Miners will be paid from the fees coming from a growing amount of transactions. The block reward will go down and slowly fees from the rising amount of transactions will take over the reward system.
For me it's pretty much unthinkable that he implemented a temporary spam protection with the thought in mind to bring inflation to the transaction fees, blocking adoption, blocking not so wealthy people from bitcoin and finally make bitcoin a system used as a setting layer for another network which at the end can turn to be a system that makes that only big corporations will use bitcoin at all. Because the costs would be too high for the average user.
It's so perverted to think that this could have been his plan. It's the full opposite of everything he claimed he wanted to achieve with bitcoin.
But again... these points often enough are impossible to convince someone already having decided on a front. Well in fact not everyone is that way yet. There are way more users that only are wondering why bitcoin is not working anymore.
