Ninjastic
PostEdited versionsQuotes to this post
Post
Topic
Board Speculation
Re: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion
by
AlexGR
on 05/03/2016, 11:22:53 UTC
Quote from: Cconvert2G36 on March 05, 2016, 11:14:20 AM
Quote from: AlexGR on March 05, 2016, 11:06:15 AM
Quote from: Cconvert2G36 on March 05, 2016, 05:29:11 AM
The truth hurts.

Not really fatal tho, unless you rush into the arms of your captors, repeatedly. Bitcoin crippled, Monero UP!

Monero has an adaptive blocksize, so now you know.  Wink

The adaptive blocksize in itself is a security weakness without substantial fees. A spammer can easily make the system "adapt" to his ever increasing demands to spam it for near-zero cost and destroy it. Plus network propagation and block validation has a certain time required, you cannot go to infinity just because someone is spamming it.

So, when the time came for such a spam scenario, "central intervention" by the devs happened and they raised the fees quite higher to make every tx much more expensive.

So the solution for Monero, wasn't the adaptive blocksize (it was broken unto itself, if you expected the "market" or the "miners" to determine the fees) => but the centrally imposed fees.

Likewise Bitcoin could have 4mb blocks tomorrow morning, if, say, every tx was bumped to something like 10 cents minimum. This, by itself, would probably have us at <500kb block use right away by eliminating dust & spam, with an 8x expansion space up to 4mb.

Don't worry, I'm not buyin' castle fun bux. Just filthy foldin' money for me these last few months.

I'm not worried. Just pointing out the obvious pattern:

"Oh I can't tolerate BTC that has a fee market, it's unacceptable if fees go up, the solution to spam can't be to make txs more expensive" => "let's buy some altcoin which does exactly that and claim we are diversifying from the 'dangers' of BTC"... lol?

Why is it unacceptable for BTC to have high fees and for altcoins to have high fees to combat spam?
Why is it more acceptable if altcoins do that by "central planning" while bitcoin's fees are actually determined by the market itself - depending the load on any given moment?
How can "adaptive blocksize" be considered a better solution when it can't work without central planning on fees? It failed monero, so why is it touted as a better solution?

We can be throwing shit all day to BTC, but to change the negatives and spin them to positives and vice versa is just propaganda.