551200+ entries in 0.363s
Pierre_Rochard: asciilifeform: why did he not announce
that last night? why does he hate
the middle class so?
Pierre_Rochard: clearly
there are much more important factors
to adoption
than
the
transaction fee
Pierre_Rochard: not
to mention,
the
transaction fee _today_ is $0.02. Where is every man woman and child? Why are
they not
taking advantage of
this amazing opportunity??
jurov: he's genuinely believing bitcoin needs
to be here for every man, woman and child
mod6: davout asked him
to come here so he could 'chat' with mp
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
kakobrekla: not in
the quality sense but quantity.
davout: "so far I’m not impressed with
the quality of
the conversation in #bitcoin-assets....."
kakobrekla: the
thing is he sees silly-con valley and
think
the ways of VS are go.
Pierre_Rochard: Bitcoin is a ferrari being sold for $10. Increasing
the price
to $100 will not deter buyers
Pierre_Rochard: gavinandresen is clearly unfamiliar with
the pricing model of every luxury good ever. <
this
mod6: bailiff, bring
the witness back
to
the witness stand
danielpbarron: gavinandresen, what did satoshi write in
the very first block??
lobbes: all you have
to do is look at bitcointalk.org
to see
that getting clueless people involved for
the sake of 'because' just leads
to more scamming, and more ignorance
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.
ben_vulpes: gavinandresen is clearly unfamiliar with
the pricing model of every luxury good ever.
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%.
ben_vulpes: <gavinandresen> asciilifeform: I don’t want
to rescue anybody, I want as many people as possible
to Get
the Bitcoin Religion! Can I have an AMEN? << good fucking god
gavinandresen: asciilifeform: I’ll use <just joking>
tags next
time
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
gavinandresen: asciilifeform: I don’t want
to rescue anybody, I want as many people as possible
to Get
the Bitcoin Religion! Can I have an AMEN?
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.
gavinandresen: Pierre_Rochard: … because driving up real Bitcoin prices is why I
think we should do everything possible
to encourage widespread adoption
Pierre_Rochard: that is, competition
that would at least attempt
to maximize
transaction fee revenue
undata: right, one would have
to reach
that state
to know
Pierre_Rochard: gavinandresen: one where
there is no competition among
transactors
to get into a block
gavinandresen: Pierre_Rochard: can you define “much
too high limit” ?
gavinandresen: asciilifeform: huh? a sidechain
to which you
transfer BTC value would be a non-fraudulent substitite.
Pierre_Rochard: increase it at
the margin (say 20%) < increase
the block size limit
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
gavinandresen: davout: great! your wallet can do whatever it likes with respect
to fees.
davout: gavinandresen: “patches welcome" <<< i don't use your wallet
tbh
davout: gavinandresen: i'm completely with ben_vulpes "the notion
that
the wallet code should be responsible for setting fees is utter braindamage." on one hand it's not
the wallet responsibility, and on
the other hand
that has nothing
to do with
the protocol
gavinandresen: davout: I have no idea if
the would cooperate enough
to make
that happen.
gavinandresen: davout: Miners would only have
the meta-incentive of “we can collectively maximize revenue if we make blocks
THIS big”
gavinandresen: asciilifeform: ok, answers
to your questions: I don’t know how many need
to implode. And I don’t know what kind of brain damage.
assbot: Successfully added a rating of -5 for gavinandresen with note: broke bitcoin in
too many ways
to mention. inquire within.
ben_vulpes: !rate gavinandresen -5 broke bitcoin in
too many ways
to mention. inquire within.
davout: gavinandresen: "oh,
the IBLT stuff? yes,
that’d make propagation O(1)" <<< so with
that,
there's no network bottleneck anymore, at least no real incentive for miners
to keep blocks small, right?
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)
ben_vulpes: asciilifeform:
this is why you kept getting sucked into arguing with Robert Viragh over plainly stupid shit.
Pierre_Rochard: gavinandresen: but my intuition
tells me such substitution won’t happen at such a low fee
ben_vulpes: lobbes:
tell him who said it, he's ignoring me.
lobbes: as others have stated; bitcoin is not meant for
the 'masses'
Pierre_Rochard: off-blockchain
transactions are
taking off,
then your argument will have won
the day
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
lobbes: gavinandresen: Why are you so set on
this 'widespread' adoption notion? It is never going
to happen
kakobrekla: too slow i am,
this cake is hindering me
kakobrekla: coinbase and
the like can be *poof* gone in one day
gavinandresen: Pierre_Rochard: what do you
think of my argument
that hash rate and fees are apples and oranges?
That people will substitute away from fee-paying
transactions
to other solutions
that use
the block chain, which means
trying
to maximize fees means no guarantee
that
there will be enough hash rate
to secure
the chain?
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
ben_vulpes: <gavinandresen> Pierre_Rochard: I believe
the goal should be
to maximize
the value of Bitcoin for everybody << you're fired.
Pierre_Rochard: gavinandresen: I
think
that our disagreement on
that premise precludes agreeing on anything downstream of
that
gavinandresen: Pierre_Rochard: I believe
the goal should be
to maximize
the value of Bitcoin for everybody
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: eventually
they mature and are prioritized.
ben_vulpes: and
their
transactions *don't* get
tied up forever.
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: unfortunately,
the experience for
the marginal
transactor is
terrible:
their
transactions just never, ever confirm.
Their coins get
tied up…
Pierre_Rochard: gavinandresen: in
theory
the miners would decide, in practice
the core devs
gavinandresen: asciilifeform: substitutes for Bitcoin are altcoins, sidechains, off-chain
transactions, credit cards, wire
transfers…..
Pierre_Rochard: gavinandresen: at some point
they stop rising because
they’re
too high for
the marginal
transactor
ben_vulpes: you've lost all support for
these large blocks in -dev