189600+ entries in 1.406s
mircea_popescu: chetty: <<< reading various stuffs here on the great blockchain 'fix', I wonder whatever happened to "If it ain't broke, don't fix it!" <<< "everyone wants to be
a developer" happened. and "everyone should get what they want" also happened.
thestringpuller: asciilifeform: i was telling
a friend the other night that the CIA/FBI acts as the USG mafia, but won't admit to being the mafia. Whereas KGB/Soviets said, "Yea we're the mob, watcha gonna do about it?"
devthedev: John Boehner opened
a house session with
a prayer to Allah.
Adlai had
a big tussle with
a business associate about his (the other guy's) emphasis on "pitching bitcoin" to investors
mircea_popescu: davout there's
a large chunk of facetious asshats who hate bitcoin just as much as the next guy whose unearned position it threatens. but they figure they get further with
a spoonfull of honey than
a barrel of vinegar, and so will make this sort of claim.
mircea_popescu: because it is
a sort of insanity that can not readily be grasped from outside.
thestringpuller: there's
a lot wrong there, but my theory is VC's won't let them hold btc like other btc companies
mircea_popescu: not
a matter of chumpness tho. suppose dude rings your doorbell dressed as
a car mechanic. "yes ?" "hello i'm the pizza delivery". "you don't seem to have any pizza ?" "ha-ha! fooled you! i'm only SAYING im pizza delivery"
mircea_popescu: assbot: Under Mark Karpeles bitcoin did 3,000,000%. Under VC capital, merchant adoption, bitcoin bowl it did -80%. : Bitcoin << that post has
a core of point in it. if it weren't wrapped in redditard retardation / karpeles bs, it'd almost be worth making.
mircea_popescu: nubbins`: lifted from deviant art and shutterstock << are the da starving artists going to get
a cut of the 14k ?
mircea_popescu: punkman: "For one thing, doctors were upset because Semmelweis' hypothesis << yup that's
a recurring topic here.
mircea_popescu:
a well. i guess bravery is not
a silicon valley virtue.
mircea_popescu: haha wait, soi he had
a lunch meeting except once i also had one his was cancelled ?
davout: justusranvier: in your article you shouldn't be reasoning on the cost of including
a transaction in
a block as (cost of one block / number of transactions) but you should reason on the marginal cost of adding
a transaction to an already existing block that i'm currently mining
davout: STRML: yeah, dsl's can be
a massive pain
STRML: all the confusion and unfamiliarity of
a new programming language without any of the benefits
STRML: I echo your frustration with ruby. It's
a nightmare trying to figure out some obscure part of the capistrano or chef DSLs
thestringpuller: davout: i'm using it for web apps at work. not really
a web stack developer, but it's not as bad as php but still doesn't taste good.
thestringpuller: asciilifeform: "would you like
a mac or win machine?" "You mean which two bowls of shit would I like to eat?"
davout: it's
a fucking symlink
davout: diametric: this new assbot is
a total scam
assbot: Logged on 30-07-2014 13:57:29; asciilifeform: g: 'show me the real budget.'
a: 'you're asking too much. that's off limits to you.'
chetty: (all you have to do to make such
a law work is send the gasenwagen for anybody that knows any maths)
chetty: its ok, they can just pass
a law to change the maths to what they like
Pierre_Rochard: asciilifeform: preaching to the choir, but
a “substitute” in the economic term is the opposite of
a “complement”, not something you necessarily consider on equal footing
davout: the idea that there exists somewhere
a magical bitcoin alternative, suffering from none of its shortcomings, towards which everyone would flow is retarded
Pierre_Rochard: well if he disagrees on the premise that being fort knox is more important than being
a rural walmart then there’s not much to discuss
Pierre_Rochard: Bitcoin is
a ferrari being sold for $10. Increasing the price to $100 will not deter buyers
Pierre_Rochard: so it’s immaterial, yet that transaction fee revenue is super-important for the customers to know, long term this is
a viable enterprise that can sustain itself
gavinandresen: Ok, if y’all are interested in keeping Bitcoin an exclusive little club… then okey dokey, we have
a fundamental difference of opinion on where the project should go.
Pierre_Rochard: gavinandresen: I agree, but in this case I think Bitcoin’s competitive advantage is 100x, and transaction fees are
a relatively small part of that, so if they were $0.50 instead of $0.05, adoption rate would decrease by let’s say 0.01%.
gavinandresen: Pierre_Rochard: I think if you went to
a VC with
a business plan of “We’re going to raise prices until we start losing customers” the VC would tell you that is
a huge mistake if you’re
a high-growth thing-
a-ma-bob
Pierre_Rochard: gavinandresen: right, that goes back to bitcoin’s adoption relative to other altcoins. when we see
a divergence then we know there’s substitution going on
ben_vulpes: asciilifeform: what even is
a sidechain?
Pierre_Rochard: gavinandresen: that’s actually
a very interesting question because we currently live in
a world where miner liabilities are in fiat prices, but in the future that may not be the case.
Pierre_Rochard: gavinandresen: one where there is no competition among transactors to get into
a block
gavinandresen: asciilifeform: huh?
a sidechain to which you transfer BTC value would be
a non-fraudulent substitite.
Pierre_Rochard: gavinandresen: the only way I see is to regularly test at what tx fee the substitution begins happening, and increase it at the margin (say 20%) whenever the top percentile of fees starts hitting it. Yes, that would involve perhaps semi-annual block size limit increases and an element of judgement. I still see it as
a better solution than
a much-too-high limit or
a contrived algorithm
ben_vulpes: asciilifeform: it's just
a basic blood pressure/cortisol reduction measure
assbot: Successfully added
a rating of -5 for gavinandresen with note: broke bitcoin in too many ways to mention. inquire within.
gavinandresen: Pierre_Rochard: ok. I’d like to brainstorm more about how you would set the maximum block size— I don’t want the developers setting it every two months, but I dont’ see
a way to make fee revenue per block drive it (because the real-world bitcoin exchange rate is so variable)
Pierre_Rochard: gavinandresen: but my intuition tells me such substitution won’t happen at such
a low fee
Pierre_Rochard: gavinandresen: If I understand your argument correctly, you’re saying that the elasticity of demand is so great that fee maximization will be insufficient anyway, so try finding another solution now. That’s
a pretty good argument, I think we should see what happens to fee revenue growth to validate it. If, say, the average fee goes up to 0.0004 btc and doesn’t budge from there, but anecdotally we hear that
Pierre_Rochard: gavinandresen: I am not. I just see
a “too low” long term hash rate as the greatest risk of ruin Bitcoin faces, and it ought to be minimized before all other considerations
assbot: Logged on 11-01-2015 22:33:39; kakobrekla: how do other envision the future when reward goes towards 0. either
a btc is worth half
a planet or the fees amount per block go up
a few orders of magnitude or network is dead
gavinandresen: Pierre_Rochard: you’re probably right. Are you
a miner yourself?
gavinandresen: Pierre_Rochard: You started with
a premise that I reject, by the way: I do not believe that
a goal should be to maximize miner revenue
ben_vulpes: gavinandresen: nobody who matters gives
a shit about the marginal user.
gavinandresen: Pierre_Rochard: if wallets could deal with that I’d be more open to running the experiment, although I still think it is
a terrible idea to shut out ANY reasonable use cases at this early stage of Bitocn’s life
gavinandresen: Pierre_Rochard: But we’d get probably at least six months, maybe
a year or two of substitution because it takes time to roll out
a hard forking change
ben_vulpes: gavinandresen: adoption is for the masses. i don't give
a single fuck about the masses. bitcoin is not for them now, nor will it ever be.
Pierre_Rochard: gavinandresen: fee revenue growth, if it accelerates then demand for btc transactions is relatively inelastic, the point at which it declerates indicates where substitution starts happening. If it’s right away, then you’re right on the economics. If its after
a period of faster growth, then we can see what bitcoin transaction fee the market will bear before switching to substitutes
gavinandresen: ben_vulpes: “patches welcome” Alex Morcos has
a patch pending with better fee estimation code.
ben_vulpes: the moronic quest to make the thing occupy as little space on disk as possible precluded you people from selecting
a queryable db
gavinandresen: Pierre_Rochard: the 0.10 release’s wallet code includes floating fees, so over the next couple months we should get
a much better idea of what is happening fee-wise.
Pierre_Rochard: gavinandresen: that we don’t increase the limit until we see what happens to total fee revenue growth after
a few months of full blocks
gavinandresen: Pierre_Rochard: if Satoshi hadn’t slapped on
a 1MB blocksize limit, would you be lobbying for
a hardfork now to impose one?
☟︎ gavinandresen: davout: when that is fixed by protocol changes, they will have some minimum costs to processing transations plus
a little profit
davout: isn't there
a plan to make block propagation O(1) by using headers-first?
ben_vulpes: Pierre_Rochard: you assume some kind of "goal", and that there's
a "we" with it.
gavinandresen: davout: today, because bigger blocks take
a while to propagate.
davout: gavinandresen: why would miners impose
a self limit?