612400+ entries in 0.327s
mircea_popescu: go1111111 yes, you say "is used" meaning "is used
to denote". but
the
two different
things it's used
to denote aren't unrelated.
they're just facets of
the same phenomeno.
go1111111: inflation is 'bad' if
the
thing
that is inflating is something you're holding as a long
term store of value. higher supply --> lower price per unit. "inflation" is used
two ways: increasing
the supply of
the currency, and increasing price levels. i'm referring
to
the former
mircea_popescu: asciilifeform generally, when people reference gold in relation
to bitcoin it's simply a
token
to represent how
they do not wish
to engage into a discussion but would rather derp about some conveniently pre-prepared strawmen.
mircea_popescu: examine what you
think is "clear"
to get a grip of how little you in fact understand. wtf is "inflation" ? why's it bad ?
mircea_popescu: go1111111 you
think
they're clear, because you understand very little of it.
mircea_popescu: level 3 : it is people IN
THIS CHAN
that are both
the leading edge and
the sum
total of both
the global financial infrastructure and its migration
to bitcoin
go1111111: the bad consequences of not having a limited currency base are clear (inflation). a larger block size won't lead
to currency inflation, but blockchain inflation and some higher bandwidth requirements.
That seems
to have very different consequences.
mircea_popescu: discussions about reefed out derps about "global financial infrastructure" are nil and void. you don't even know what it is in
th efirst place.
mircea_popescu: level 1 : "many people" is not an argument, because a bunch of redditards are not actually different people.
the headcount of all reddit is like, 5 people.
that's not many and barely people.
mircea_popescu: go1111111:
thestringpuller: many people see
the potential for Bitcoin
to replace much of
the global financial infrastructure. i know people in
this channel prefer Bitcoin
to be a gold-replacement, but if it was able
to do a lot more, it'd be pretty awesome <<
this is wrong on each and every level.
mircea_popescu: for all i care, everyone's welcome
to
try any
theory
they wish and
then starve on it. what's however not acceptable, not now, not ever, is fraud. passing scamcoins for actualcoins and
trying
to pretend like shitpie is "just as good as pie".
assbot: People! US Dollars are not worth a fifth of a Bitcent. STOP SELLING! pe
Trilema - Un blog de Mircea Popescu.
Apocalyptic: mircea, may well be...
that's why
the ultimate solution is: don't let
them get
their hands on it
mircea_popescu: ethereum is good for a few weeks,
then need something else, same pretense.
BingoBoingo: The correct solution
to limited blocksize is occasionally buying
trashcans full of your local scrip as necessary
mircea_popescu: Apocalyptic yeah but
the problem with
this crapolade is
that it constantly needs
to leech off hard currency
to survive.
mircea_popescu: he's not welcome
to
try and hijack a project he has essentialy nothing
to do with into
that swamp however.
mircea_popescu: gavin wants
to have a cryptousd he's welcome
to make yet another shitcoin.
Apocalyptic: <mircea_popescu> yet somehow
the bitcoin crowd is supposed
to have forgotten why it got into bitcoin in
the first place //
that's a recurring
thought I have
these days
mircea_popescu: to "something else"
that's not really in any sense something else at all.
mircea_popescu: yet somehow
the bitcoin crowd is supposed
to have forgotten why it got into bitcoin in
the first place, and apply
the inflationary economy it's ran off from here
mircea_popescu: amusinglky enough,
the arguments against either are also
the same.
Apocalyptic: the blocksize limit is essentially
tied
to what bitcoin is, even if you can't see it
mircea_popescu: go1111111
the arguments for a limited b lock size are
the same as
the arguments for a limited currency base.
Apocalyptic: go1111111, dude it's not just about
the fees
mircea_popescu: einstein never got
the damned formula out because luce irigaray didn't see why he'd privilege
the speed of light over other speeds
that are so much more important
to us. and so on.
☟︎ mike_c: yes,
this is not kindergarten. unfortunately
there still is no good bitcoin kindergarten.
go1111111: if
there are good arguments for high fees i'm curious
to be linked
to
them or hear
them. possibly my preference for low fees is as dumb as you're claiming, but it'd be interesting
to know why you
think
that
mircea_popescu: because
that's how everything works in
this world, it's reddit out here.
mircea_popescu: mike_c no but really, "i don't see". let's all go
to
the hospital and start derping, "i don't see why i'd have
to
take my clothes off"
assbot: Logged on 15-09-2014 14:33:56; nubbins`: his btcjam profile has
two "recommendations" from friends.
the second one commences
thus:
mike_c: <+mircea_popescu> i don';t giuve a shit what usefullness you see or don't see. << another contender for
the b-a
tagline :)
mircea_popescu: you're better served by going
through
the logs as relevant
to your interest.
mircea_popescu: mechtronic2001 it'd be a pretty horrible place seeing how btcjam isn't
too well regarded.
mechtronic2001: Would
this be a proper channel
to post my btcjam funding page. It would be an investment, but I don't want
to step on
toes here.
go1111111: mircea_popescu: I don't see
the usefulness if high fees, except as a means
to secure
the network. but fees will be a small portion of
the reward
to miners for a while. low fees enable
transactions
to occur
that would otherwise be
too costly, eliminating deadweight loss
Naphex: mircea_popescu: so yeah, i haven't found anything even close
to stable as bitcoind :)
mircea_popescu: go1111111: BingoBoingo: yes, bandwidth is
the
thing
to be genuinely concerned about << you don't get
to separate your better's concerns into genuine and less genuine, fuckface.
nubbins`: what're
the big pools running anyway, i wonder
mircea_popescu: after
the "let's fork bitcoin for fun" and
the "let's put heardbleed in your software" disasters, you'd have
to be insane
to run anything coming from vessenes' merry band of scammers.
mircea_popescu: Apocalyptic nubbins` no dude, because gonobody and usgavin have made decisions and
tradeoffs dontchaknow.
Naphex: nubbins`: storage is not
that much of a problem as CPU
Time
mircea_popescu: go1111111:
the problem is
that having small blocksizes and high fees doesn't actually make anything nicer for anyone. <<< and who
told you
this ?
nubbins`: A new Inital maximum block size such
that a full node may be run by "somebody with a current, reasonably fast computer and Internet connection, running an up-to-date version of Bitcoin Core and willing
to dedicate half
their CPU power and bandwidth
to Bitcoin."
mircea_popescu: yeah, im not making it
that early. wouldnt mind asking
the guy a few q's but whatevs.
mthreat: i can't go myself.. but michelle's
there and some others
mircea_popescu: engineering is about doing
things, and gavin has a vanishingly small ability in
that field, also.
mircea_popescu: and engineering is NOT "about
tradeoffs". politics is about
tradeoff, and gavin has zero mandate or political authority
mircea_popescu: <go1111111>
thestringpuller: Gavin surely knows
that it adds some burden on full nodes, but
the point is
that it's a
trivial amount. engineering is about
tradeoffs and
the
thing being
traded off against increasing
the block size is miniscule << increasing
the block size is NOT a gain. it's a loss.
Naphex: thestringpuller: load avg on
the slavenode would drop around 10x, so
thats a lot
mircea_popescu: <pete_dushenski> he's just playing it up for
the crowd. <<
that, pretty much. like any pundit/hired "tech support", he's got his
talking points and he's going
to
talk
the points.
Naphex: the supernode fillters all
that out, and sends clean
to slaves
Naphex: thestringpuller:
there is a lot of wasted CPU
Time
thestringpuller: so you point
them directly
to
the supernode regardless of location?
Naphex: they just don't p2p connect
to
the network and only connect
to a master node
Naphex: thestringpuller:
they store it
nubbins`: srsly, bright blue
text on grey bg
thestringpuller: Naphex: interesting. do local nodes store
the blockchain or access it via network?
nubbins`: why is
the header of
the website as ugly as possible?
Naphex: since
the supernode will filter most of
the junk
Naphex: i use
this as a "supernode"
to p2p connect
to
the network, and use local nodes
to scale
nubbins`: thestringpuller:
tyvm, first
thought-out argument i've read yet
Naphex: whats with all
this burden on full nodes
thestringpuller: USGavin's proposal consists of significantly increasing
the burden on
the full nodes, while doing nothing
to address
the actual problem
threatening Bitcoin.
This, of course, is not
the direction a responsible head of a FOSS project steers
things. It is however
the exact direction a puppet of Microsoft
tries
to steer a standards discussion."
thestringpuller: "Seeing how
the earlier discussion actually neglected
to mention a perfectly valid alternative avenue
to evaluate
the idiocy of
this proposal, consider
that
the main (really, in practical
terms
the only) vulnerability of Bitcoin at
the moment is
that while miners are rewarded for mining, relayers are not rewarded for relaying.
This is a sore oversight on
the part of Satoshi, privately admitted at
that, and unfort
nubbins`: ultimate decentralization,
that must be automatically good, right?
nubbins`: maybe we should make it so a
TI-83 can run a full node
nubbins`: is a 1ghz pentium
too much of a burden?
nubbins`: yeah, let's put
the brakes on everything so you can help "contribute"
nubbins`: there needs
to be a minimum, yes? an abacus is infeasible?
nubbins`: "analog bad, digital good... or was it
the other way.."
go1111111: thestringpuller: not if
that special hardware is always below a certain cost
threshold
thestringpuller: yes but if
the block size increases
too rapidly eventually only certain hardware can run it.
nubbins`: and eventually you'll need a raspberry pi 2.0 with a 30 usd external storage medium
that has 2x
the capacity
nubbins`: yes, for full nodes. do you have any idea how many people in
the world don't have a "spare computer"?
nubbins`: maybe you need a computer
that was built after 2004 if you want
to run a node
go1111111: the problem is
that having small blocksizes and high fees doesn't actually make anything nicer for anyone.
that's what nubbins and I have been arguing.
the extra "niceness" you want is a
trivial savings in abundant computer resources
nubbins`: "poor people should be able
to run a node"
thestringpuller: what is all
this socialist shit..."free stuff I didn't work for"
go1111111: smaller blocksizes
tend
to increase
the fee required
to get in a block. lower fees seem preferable.
the only case i can see where you wouldn't want smaller fees is when network security was based heavily on fees, but
that won't be
the case for a while
thestringpuller: go1111111: well. consider you are mining now at negative profit margins because diff is
too high. You can upgrade and go further into
the hole and hope
to god you make your money back. Or you can cut your losses and move on with your life.
Apocalyptic: nubbins`,
the blocksize limit also incudes a lot of economic consequences regarding
transactions and fees