[Cryptography] Bitcoin blocksize limit can be removed

[Lodewijk andré de la porte]

2015-11-12 20:34 GMT+01:00 Ryan Carboni <ryacko at gmail.com>:

> 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.
>

Yeah.. It matters and it concerns miners quite greatly. I have chatted with
mining pool operators that were adding tx's for the sake of Bitcoin -
because it was losing them money. In fact, they were quite upset it was
losing them money.

Greater tx fee's would fix it ofc - but greater tx fee's are also bad for
Bitcoin. (Who wants an expensive money transfer service?)


> 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.
>

Yeah.. the economic incentives are aligned with the system design: a finite
supply.


> 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.
>

Early investor advantage is designed for being so huge. People with money
smarts will buy a bunch of them and push Bitcoin into adoption with money
they already had. That's what I deduced before I bought, and so far it's
not wrong. Less steady sailing then I expected, but that's what you get
with the current sorry state of worldly discourse.


> P.S. I hope discussion of Bitcoin is unlimited, it was posted here
> afterall.
>

No, it's definitely limited. It's limited to sane statements, without the
intent to troll about central banking inflation fractional economic blah
that nobody here seems to understand anyway. The punishment is a
bullshitstorm.

If you're not trolling, read up on austerian/gold-based moneys and how they
actually do work just fine. Don't buy into the weak arguments. Don't take
the perspective of a nation, or feel sorry for people that picked the wrong
money. Having a single global currency (like a national currency) is why
disasters hit everyone so severely. It's misunderstandings stacked upon
misunderstandings, in order to pull money and power towards those with
power, and in order to control in order to improve, and to compete amongst
nations.

Uhg. I'm totally falling for this. I'm just too damn eager for discussions.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.metzdowd.com/pipermail/cryptography/attachments/20151113/00fe3571/attachment.html>