[Cryptography] Bitcoin blocksize limit can be removed

[Ryan Carboni]

On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 3:42 AM, Lodewijk andré de la porte <l at odewijk.nl>
wrote:

> 2015-11-12 4:59 GMT+01:00 Ryan Carboni <ryacko at gmail.com>:
>
>> I already suggested an improvement, to avoid a tragedy of the commons,
>> you need the block size itself to cost the miner bitcoins, and for the
>> mining rate to be variable based on total hashing power.
>
>
> Are you trolling? Mining costs plenty, adding transactions to a block is
> not actually rewarded except by the tx fee's. There is already a cost to
> larger blocks; you have to send it out and get the network to commit to
> your block: the larger the block, the longer the transmission time, the
> larger the chance another block will beat yours! It seems marginal, but if
> you have greater scale the cost increases too. (it's also the
> principle reason for having such slow blocks)
>


Longer transmission time. I can argue you are arguing in bad faith as well.
You seem to totally ignore that mining is done by pools, and that the
"larger chance another block will beat yours" doesn't matter when the the
mining pool servers are in datacenters with ten gigabit connections. Most
arguments in defense in the current system mask the true intent, in that
they bought Bitcoins when they were "cheap" and want to artificially
constrain the creation of currency. This is literally the worst central
banking scheme I've ever seen. Worse than Gorbachev's Uskoreniye, which
mostly was the central bank lending money to the government, while
maintaining price controls, accelerating shortages. Bitcoin can't hope to
reach a reasonable amount of adoption without some sort of automated
central banking policy, to discourage speculation and encourage liquidity.


P.S. I hope discussion of Bitcoin is unlimited, it was posted here afterall.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.metzdowd.com/pipermail/cryptography/attachments/20151112/3dc5382f/attachment.html>