Quote from: justusranvier on August 07, 2014, 04:42:30 AM

Quote from: cypherdoc on August 07, 2014, 04:25:23 AM

most of those ppl honestly believe that keeping blocks at 1MB is the right thing to do

Of course. That does not preclude their believe being incited from people will less pure motives. That's a pretty standard political movement infiltration/disruption tactic.

Quote from: cypherdoc on August 07, 2014, 04:25:23 AM

i must admit, i don't like what i'm seeing on Coinbase's behalf regarding KYC/AML. they're being too intrusive. we'll have to see how this evolves as i'm sure they are under severe pressure to conform which could change for the better with time.

What I'm most worried about is fractional reserves once the majority of the coins are herded into off-chain processors.

why would ppl leave significant amounts of coins at the processors anymore than they do now just b/c they're forced off chain by high fees from a 1MB block? spending amounts maybe, but not savings. the only indisputable principle here is to never leave your privkeys to someone else.

Quote

Consider this scenario:

The IRS devotes a lot of resources to auditing anyone who withdraws their coins. If you withdraw coins and move them, they assume it's a taxable event with the burden of proof on you to show otherwise. Coinbase/Circle are more than happy to tip them off.

Most people don't want to deal with the hassle, so they leave their coins in their online "wallets" that handle their tax reporting automatically (how convienient!)

Bitlicences make it unprofitable to operate a Bitcoin company, except for banks which are except. Coinbase and Circle get bought out by JPM and Goldman Sachs.

You'll never see your coins again, just like Germany will never see their gold again.

the IRS doesn't have those kind of resources. audit rates are minimal and have been going down. even so, just leave small spending amounts on offchain processors.

Quote

Quote from: cypherdoc on August 07, 2014, 04:25:23 AM

you do know that Gavin agrees with you when it comes to increasing tx rates? i seriously doubt he could be manipulated given his political leanings and actions heretofore. i'm just glad he's being paid by the BF while being alongside Matonis, who i think has his head on straight.

I know Gavin agrees and I generally agree with what Matonis does.

Nevertheless, they are in positions of influence and vulnerable to coercion and so I'll never be able to trust them. I'd love for the situation to be such that they don't have any power that anyone would coerce them to misuse, so that I could trust them.

Note that Bitlicenses may have legal implications for both of them.

Quote from: cypherdoc on August 07, 2014, 04:25:23 AM

i would say that if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

"640k ought to be enough for anyone"

maybe i'm just more optimistic than you. every open source project has a leader. maybe not one with so much at stake as Bitcoin. as i said in a post earlier today on the Nash Equilibrium; i think corruption won't want to take the risk of being exposed to the sunlight of the Bitcoin system as there would be too much at stake for them to risk it. if billionaires like Branson and Ka-shing ever got wind of something like that, we might actually see some gubmint apparatchiks go to jail.