488400+ entries in 0.337s
trinque: ben_vulpes: aint even mad; and I agree
that any modified
thing may not merit being called bitcoin
mircea_popescu: the
truth is
that for about half of
the us,
the marginal benefit of spending another 1k per capita on
their health is unrecoverable, as
they won't produce in excess of
that 1k. ever.
mircea_popescu: every large enough operation has
this set of accounts
that are below water - cost more
to service
than
they're worth. which is why fiat banks are charging per account
mircea_popescu: otherwise, poor people are a liability not an asset.
they are below zero.
mircea_popescu: there's no value "collectively".
there seems
to be, currently, because
the usg / ag etc are propping
them up on borrowed money.
williamdunne: Yeah, but
that one guy isn't going
to be betting all his money on Just-Dice, collectively
there is a lot of value
to exploit
mircea_popescu: we have
this situation right now in argentina, for instance, and
there's 40mn of em derps.
mircea_popescu: one guy can and usually is worth more
than an entire country.
mircea_popescu: because you imagine
there's an intrinsic minimum value for "human beings"
williamdunne: lobbes: In
terms of bitcoin? no, in
terms of potatoes? yes
lobbes: those 7 billion customers aren't necessarily worth more
than
those 2 million
williamdunne: lobbes: Sure, but it alters
things massively. Just-Dice with 7 billion potential customers is better
than Just-Dice with 2,000,000 potential
mircea_popescu: no,
there won't be. it will be a bunch of fucktarded dudebros,
that aren't even legal
to drink.
williamdunne: pete_dushenski: Well
that depends on what you are doing
pete_dushenski: williamdunne: but
the barriers
to entry are lower in
the fiat world
lobbes: but it isn't
the currency
that makes your business profitable
williamdunne: But in return you have more potential users of your XYZ business, and more potential
to operate profitable businesses
that are less-than-possible in
the fiat world
☟︎ mircea_popescu: it's worse, because a) every party participant is stuck b) keeping ~complete~ records of
the whole
thing c) forever. it's not just a process
thing like
the party. it's
that you have
to write
their noiise down, and pay for warehouses.
williamdunne: Because I don't have
to
talk
to everyone using bitcoin at
the same
time nor put up with
their noise (in particular, anyway)
williamdunne: mircea_popescu:
That seems counter-intuitive, I'm not
trying
to over-value
the poor and stupid here.
mircea_popescu: adding more people, especially if adding more people SELECTED by
the criteria
that "they are poor, stupid and usleess enough
to need
to be added specifically" is a recipe for making your
thing worth less.
mircea_popescu: it's nto even
the exception, it is
the rule. facebook
today is not worth 1/10 of what facebook was worth in 2005
mircea_popescu: williamdunne you have 5 users. one of which is worth "1 unit of useful". you dd 5 more.
they
together are worth 0.5 units of useful.
williamdunne: ben_vulpes: Yes, its very useful. But
the value of your coins will inflate fast if its just 12 people using it over and over.
trinque: ben_vulpes: I'm not going
to accept being called a muppet for saying we're not in a position
to evaluate an appropriate block size,
therefore changing it is unwise.
ben_vulpes: williamdunne: is not
the hard cap of 21M of
the
thing enough for you?
ben_vulpes: williamdunne: is not
the inability
to interdict funds enough for you?
mircea_popescu: williamdunne what if in going from 5
to 10 you lose
the one worth 1 and gain 5 worth .1 each ?
ben_vulpes: asciilifeform:
these i suppose are
the muppets you're looking for.
williamdunne: ben_vulpes: Of course it matters, its a network. More people = more useful. I don't see how
that can be anything but an objective
truth.
ben_vulpes: "oh gosh so we can all be richer in
the fyooooture instead of working
today" sort of nonsense
ben_vulpes: and what is
this "growth"
thing you keep banging on about?
ben_vulpes: williamdunne: alternatively,
the big blocks version will be populated with retards.
ben_vulpes: the
thing about bitcoins is
that it a system
that conserves, and resists diddling in
the vein of fiat economies.
williamdunne: ben_vulpes: Hypothesis; if we ever get
to
the point where we are completely filling blocks and fees start going
through
the roof, either growth will halter or it will fork - and
the 1mb version will be virtually barren
trinque: 1mb is "yeah
that's probably big enough"
trinque: I don't support anything, much less
this
trinque: fees, and prioritizing
transactions according
to
them
ben_vulpes: especially if you're even sort of supporting
this blocksize change derpage.
ben_vulpes: trinque: you gotta have a hypothesis about what's going
to happen, man.
ben_vulpes: i'm saying
that "right" doesn't matter.
trinque: one will know what happens when
the blocksize limit is reached ... when
the blocksize limit is reached
williamdunne: The blocksize is a limiting factor of its usage, 21m doesn't
thanks
to 8 decimal places
trinque: not
that 1mb isn't
the right value
trinque: my point is you're claiming
to know more
than you do
ben_vulpes: what's
the worst case scenario of hitting
that ceiling?
ben_vulpes: i guess
they're all bitcoin or something retarded like
that
ben_vulpes: what
then distinguishes bitcoin from XXXcoin?
trinque: the way
to find out what a good blocksize would be is
to let
the
thing bang into
the ceiling so we know what
that looks like
trinque: 1mb seems
to be a reasonable cap
williamdunne: It wouldn't be bitcoin of
today but it would still be bitcoin
ben_vulpes: so if you change
the block size, you get deuterium.
williamdunne: trinque: Bitcoin currently worth x potatoes, bitcoin in
the future
to be worth y potatoes
ben_vulpes: nitrogen is nitrogen because of
the arrangement of electrons in valence shells.
trinque: ben_vulpes:
that sounds like a
tautology
williamdunne: trinque: Sure,
thats what I would advocate
too
ben_vulpes: if a
thing exists with a block size
that is not one megabyte, /that
thing is not bitcoin/.
ben_vulpes: williamdunne: you're missing
the point.
trinque: williamdunne: so let it bang into
the ceiling and see what people do
williamdunne: I definitely agree
that
too large blocks would break it, but I also
think
that if bitcoin is
to grow we will need bigger blocks
ben_vulpes: usg can break it like
they broke gpg, but
that broken
thing will not and cannot be bitcoin
pete_dushenski: i don't, i could've just as well said 'like i want a hole in
the head'
williamdunne: I don't see why you're saying
that you'd want
the
transaction capabilities
tied
to
the number of coins issued
though
williamdunne: trinque: I agree, but
thats different
to a permanent cap
trinque: how bout just fill
the bucket before considering marrying a larger bucket?
pete_dushenski: to
the extent
that scarcity is
the goal because scarcity is a key driver of value,
then yes
pete_dushenski: bigger
than 1mb
though ? not in
the foreseeable future
williamdunne: pete_dushenski: From what I can
tell
the objection you all have is
that Gavin's suggestion is constant inflation, as opposed
to
the block-size being anything other
than 1mb
pete_dushenski: williamdunne: curious, what do you mean by "Generally
they're against inflation of block sizes, not an increase."
pete_dushenski: i'll
try it
today but i'm a little stuffed up, still recovering from last week's mega-fiesta, so if it doesn't sound great i'll re-do it
tmrw
assbot: Successfully updated
the rating for williamdunne from 1
to 2 with note: scoopbot
the 3rd
mats: mircea_popescu: sure, put me on
the keyserver project
assbot: You rated user williamdunne on 12-Apr-2015, with a rating of 1, and supplied
these additional notes: new blood.
pete_dushenski: perhaps later
today i'll stumble across something in
the logs or in
the news.
BingoBoingo: pete_dushenski: Passed
the qntra part, now faces your vex
trinque: mircea_popescu | well you will notice
that nothing happened here also. it's just ... what was
that word, for an item
that breaks minds << star
trek used
this against
the borg, could've been ripped off from a novel