Jump to content
bjoorn

Global Launch - hold it!

Recommended Posts

I think there is a lot of pressure on you guys at EDS to do a global launch of Spells of Genesis. Specially by people that have invested money in this joint venture. I have invested a considerable amount as well and i have a different opinion. I think a launch right now could be very counterproductive for investors and thereby lead to an blow back on EDS. I think the average investor automatically thinks that a launch would bring more people to the market. This is true in the aspect that more people playing the game would mean more potential customers buying cards. But I thinks there is more to it from a market perspective. I think one of the most concerning factor that adds friction to the market and hamper fungibility is the high miner fees. And let's face it the market looks almost completely dead, even if I don't think it is. It's just that the high friction from miners fees are preventing any meaningful trade. People, ordinary or not, are not going to pay an totally unrealistically high miners fee to put up a plea bargain in BoO and that will prevent a buy pressure from forming (bottom -> up). And EDS will have a harder time to sell it's new card because buyers not going to invest in a asset if there is no buy pressure on previous assets. This is a very contagious spiral in my opinion and nothing that's going to be changed by a global launch.

This is my take on the situation right now. My opinion is that EDS should wait for the block size battle to resolve itself before considering a date for the global launch and instead should focus on integrating new content into the game instead. I'm very hopeful that a consensus is forming among miners and a resolution is near i future. 

My two cents

Edited by bjoorn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no block size problem. Bitcoin is working perfectly as it is and fees should continue to rise orders of magnitude from the current level still. If the games market cannot handle higher mining fees it's doomed to fail (I dont think it is).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"There is no block size problem."

I think pretty much everyone thinks there is a problem and that bitcoin is less functional with blocks full. Either way bitcoin is on the road to scaling on-chain and off-chain so your opinion comes a little bit to late to the battle. 

"[...]fees should continue to rise orders of magnitude from the current level still."

Why would you like to pay miners more? Who is asking for this "orders of magnitude" higher fees? Miners don't seem to ask for it, node operators like me don't ask for it, users of bitcoin like me don't ask for it?

Why would you like to pay more in fees then you pay for a SoG card? 

"If the games market cannot handle higher mining fees it's doomed to fail (I dont think it i)."

Looking at the market it's failing right now. And it's going to fail even harder with "orders of magnitude" higher fees and that is why EDS should wait for the scaling fork. 

Edited by bjoorn
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No-one of importance thinks it's a problem, only a bunch of very naive uninformed (but very loud) individuals.

Why it needs to continue to rise? To displace the need for the blocksize subsidy and a fee market to develop. The Bitcoin network needs to stay the most secure network on the planet. I don't see it as a huge risk for this game as they can move (together with counterparty) to a less secure blockchain (Litecoin maybe?) once the fees are too large relative to the value of the SOG assets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"No-one of importance thinks it's a problem, only a bunch of very naive uninformed (but very loud) individuals."

Who? Ah don't bother. You are making the appeal to authority fallacy. Kid you'r are disqualified!

"To displace the need for the blocksize subsidy and a fee market "

The error in your understanding comes from your failure to imagine a bigger block future, or as Doc Brown puts it "you're not thinking 4th dimensionally Marty!" Take for example, a future in which blocks are 2 MB, the blockchain accommodates twice as many users. This has the effect that Bitcoin is 4 times as useful, because utility rises with the square of the size. One can presume that the value also rises 4x. Even if miners only collected one quarter of the previous fees in btc terms from each participant, in dollar terms they would receive twice as much. [Original fee x 1/4 x 2 users x 4 $value = 2 x original $ fee] To see that this is true you need only look at charts of how bitcoin has grown in usage and value over its lifetime before it hit the 1MB ceiling. Miners collected much much more fees in dollar terms, not counting the block subsidy, in 2015 when the blocks were still not quite full than they did in 2012 when bitcoin was ~ $5. This was prior to the ridiculous artificial fee market. 

There is also a great talk about a non artificial fee market that I encourage you to listen to. https://letstalkbitcoin.com/blog/post/epicenter-172-peter-rizun-a-bitcoin-fee-market-without-a-blocksize-limit

"The bitcoin network needs to stay the most secure network on the planet."

Stating that an ad hoc limit will lead to the most secure network on the planet is a nirvana fallacy. 

"I don't see it as a huge risk for this game as they can move (together with counterparty) to a less secure blockchain (Litecoin maybe?) once the fees are too large relative to the value of the SOG assets."

You asking a project that could bring thousands - hundreds of thousands to Bitcoin to leave to a other cryptos. Com'on man! Driving away use cases like SoG and other projects will mean less users, lower value proposition and a lower market value for bitcoin and as a consequence lower security.    

 
Edited by bjoorn
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, bjoorn said:

"No-one of importance thinks it's a problem, only a bunch of very naive uninformed (but very loud) individuals."

Who? Ah don't bother. You are making the appeal to authority fallacy. Kid you'r are disqualified!

No you were. You were claiming people think it's a problem and using that as an argument. So I countered your 'argument' (which is a fallacy but I was being nice) by explaining that those people are ignorant. The don't comprehend the true functioning of Bitcoin. 

 

16 hours ago, bjoorn said:

"To displace the need for the blocksize subsidy and a fee market "

The error in your understanding comes from your failure to imagine a bigger block future, or as Doc Brown puts it "you're not thinking 4th dimensionally Marty!" Take for example, a future in which blocks are 2 MB, the blockchain accommodates twice as many users. This has the effect that Bitcoin is 4 times as useful, because utility rises with the square of the size. One can presume that the value also rises 4x. Even if miners only collected one quarter of the previous fees in btc terms from each participant, in dollar terms they would receive twice as much. [Original fee x 1/4 x 2 users x 4 $value = 2 x original $ fee] To see that this is true you need only look at charts of how bitcoin has grown in usage and value over its lifetime before it hit the 1MB ceiling. Miners collected much much more fees in dollar terms, not counting the block subsidy, in 2015 when the blocks were still not quite full than they did in 2012 when bitcoin was ~ $5. This was prior to the ridiculous artificial fee market. 

There is also a great talk about a non artificial fee market that I encourage you to listen to. https://letstalkbitcoin.com/blog/post/epicenter-172-peter-rizun-a-bitcoin-fee-market-without-a-blocksize-limit

Your utility function is too limited. You base your utility based on number of people. It's mainly about what value it has to people. There could literary be two people using the network while being more valuable than when the whole world uses it (of course that's unlikely but not impossible). The strength in the Bitcoin network lies in the extremely high security combined with the censorship resistance. These factors are not important to the majority of the population (at least not in the sense that they can pay for it) but still a network that can do that is way more valuable than yet another payment network. You're too stuck in your socialist ways. The world is not equal.

 

16 hours ago, bjoorn said:

"The bitcoin network needs to stay the most secure network on the planet."

Stating that an ad hoc limit will lead to the most secure network on the planet is a nirvana fallacy. 

 

Nah, a lot of limits are fine (as long as they are not ridiculous). If back in the start it would have been 512KB I would be supporting that right now. The most important thing is that it never changes. Much like the 21 M BTC limit. Value lies in scarcity. Miners spend money to secure the network to be allowed to allocate block space. For this to be useful to them that block space needs scarcity. If you compromise that you compromise the security of the network (and the entire value proposition!).

16 hours ago, bjoorn said:

"I don't see it as a huge risk for this game as they can move (together with counterparty) to a less secure blockchain (Litecoin maybe?) once the fees are too large relative to the value of the SOG assets."

You asking a project that could bring thousands - hundreds of thousands to Bitcoin to leave to a other cryptos. Com'on man! Driving away use cases like SoG and other projects will mean less users, lower value proposition and a lower market value for bitcoin and as a consequence lower security.    

I think you fail to comprehend what Bitcoin can be. It really doesn't need counterparty if it needs high volume, low cost, on-chain transactions to function as those properties need to compromise security. 2 out of 3 (secure, censorship-resistant, low cost) ain't bad. It's freaking awesome.It's the most amazing system in human history IF AND ONLY IF you don't compromise security and censorship resistance to make fees lower. 

EDIT:

BTW, I am not pushing anyone away if they are ok with transactions that are not on-chain. For example the lightning network which is currently under development.

Edited by wachtwoord

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

No you were. You were claiming people think it's a problem and using that as an argument. So I countered your 'argument' (which is a fallacy but I was being nice) by explaining that those people are ignorant. The don't comprehend the true functioning of Bitcoin. 

No i said that I think that it's was the case. For many potential use cases in Bitcoin, that gives it a value proposition, full blocks is a problem. For most that holds SoG cards, it's a problem, for most that whats to use BCY, it's a problem! And i do comprehend the true functionality of Bitcoin because I have been here before blocks where full and the Bitcoin I once knew was totally totally secure, censorship-resistant, low cost without blocks being full. There is no need to change that and i ask you again who is asking for ludicrous higher fees? Miners, Node operators or End Users? 

Quote

Nah, a lot of limits are fine (as long as they are not ridiculous). If back in the start it would have been 512KB I would be supporting that right now. The most important thing is that it never changes. Much like the 21 M BTC limit. Value lies in scarcity. Miners spend money to secure the network to be allowed to allocate block space. For this to be useful to them that block space needs scarcity. If you compromise that you compromise the security of the network (and the entire value proposition!).

You compare apples and oranges. Bitcoin is a deflationary currency. The currency supply could be 1 BTC or it could be 21 M BTC - it wouldn't make any meaningful difference because a number is infinitely divisible. There is no scarcity in a number from that perspective. Not hard to understand? A Ad Hoc limit of 1 mb blocksize is a fundamental limiting factor of how many transactions that can fit in a block. Failing to change this limit is as moronic as not changing the decimal place when we need more units of accounts. 

Quote

I think you fail to comprehend what Bitcoin can be. It really doesn't need counterparty if it needs high volume, low cost, on-chain transactions to function as those properties need to compromise security. 2 out of 3 (secure, censorship-resistant, low cost) ain't bad. It's freaking awesome.It's the most amazing system in human history IF AND ONLY IF you don't compromise security and censorship resistance to make fees lower. 

As I said by limiting bitcoins use cases you will have a less secure and less censorship-resistant Bitcoin. The more people that uses Bitcoin for ordinary things like trading cards, the harder it will be for a government to enforce censorship on it. The more people that use Bitcoin the more value a miner would be derived from securing the Blockchain. 

Quote

BTW, I am not pushing anyone away if they are ok with transactions that are not on-chain. For example the lightning network which is currently under development.

You absolutely are because you don't recognize that the solutions that you are bringing to the table takes time to implement and to gain a network effects. Blocks are full today because of the ad hoc limit and there is where the problem lies and there is no need to push projects like SoG to other crypto currency's because we can deal with the problem today and focus to get off-chain scaling tomorrow. The option i support include support for this awesome future technologies as well. 

Quote

You're too stuck in your socialist ways.

Thanks for the ad hominem. But I support a market-driven non artificial fee market. This opinion of yours are exactly as coherent as any of your other opinions.

 

I really urge you to go back and listen to the talk i recommended because you makes no economic sense to me. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, bjoorn said:

No i said that I think that it's was the case. For many potential use cases in Bitcoin, that gives it a value proposition, full blocks is a problem. For most that holds SoG cards, it's a problem, for most that whats to use BCY, it's a problem! And i do comprehend the true functionality of Bitcoin because I have been here before blocks where full and the Bitcoin I once knew was totally totally secure, censorship-resistant, low cost without blocks being full. There is no need to change that and i ask you again who is asking for ludicrous higher fees? Miners, Node operators or End Users? 

The problem here is that some of the use cases you are mentioning might just prove to be uneconomic. You are proposing to sacrifice the most valuable part of Bitcoin for less important ones and that's silly. I'm pretty sure I've been around for longer (2011) and I've seen non-full blocks and have always despised it. I always made transactions with zero fee as it would be accepted anyway because of the subsidy. That is not a healthy situation as the subsidy is temporary, fees need to secure the network. So sure the network was relatively safe and resistent to censorship (although this needs to grow to be safe from any and all controlling actors) but that was because of subsidization. This will go away.

3 hours ago, bjoorn said:

You compare apples and oranges. Bitcoin is a deflationary currency. The currency supply could be 1 BTC or it could be 21 M BTC - it wouldn't make any meaningful difference because a number is infinitely divisible. There is no scarcity in a number from that perspective. Not hard to understand? A Ad Hoc limit of 1 mb blocksize is a fundamental limiting factor of how many transactions that can fit in a block. Failing to change this limit is as moronic as not changing the decimal place when we need more units of accounts. 

No I don't. You are failing to understand the economic value of scarcity. I explained it throughly in my last post: " the value lies in scarcity. Miners spend money to secure the network to be allowed to allocate block space. For this to be useful to them that block space needs scarcity. If you compromise that you compromise the security of the network (and the entire value proposition!)." These are really very basic economic concepts but most people don't seem to comprehend. Please read this sentence until you do.

BTW you are the one that is comparing apples to oranges as you compare it with moving the decimal when the value of XBT shoots up and more decimal places are needed. That is indeed moronic (your words).

3 hours ago, bjoorn said:

As I said by limiting bitcoins use cases you will have a less secure and less censorship-resistant Bitcoin. The more people that uses Bitcoin for ordinary things like trading cards, the harder it will be for a government to enforce censorship on it. The more people that use Bitcoin the more value a miner would be derived from securing the Blockchain. 

Quite the opposite. Ordinary use cases does nothing for censorship resistent. Look at paypal, the banking system, credit cards etc. All of these are used in everyday life but none-of-these are censorship resistant in the slightest. Distribution and hash power protect the network. Nothing else.

3 hours ago, bjoorn said:

You absolutely are because you don't recognize that the solutions that you are bringing to the table takes time to implement and to gain a network effects. Blocks are full today because of the ad hoc limit and there is where the problem lies and there is no need to push projects like SoG to other crypto currency's because we can deal with the problem today and focus to get off-chain scaling tomorrow. The option i support include support for this awesome future technologies as well. 

Thanks for the ad hominem. But I support a market-driven non artificial fee market. This opinion of yours are exactly as coherent as any of your other opinions.

 

I really urge you to go back and listen to the talk i recommended because you makes no economic sense to me. 

If you prefered the free market you would allow the market the drive fees up. You're not as you like centralized planning (increasing the block size).

You BTU guys should really just fork and get it over with. Split make two coins and have fun with your crippled "Unlimited" coins which I'll dump on the market first chance I get.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You make absolute no economic sense to me. Where is the whitepaper this nonsense is coming from? Did you even listen to the talk. It's based on a peer reviewed white paper. I need a whitepaper on the AD HOC 1 mb limit ASAP! 

Quote

You BTU guys should really just fork and get it over with. Split make two coins and have fun with your crippled "Unlimited" coins which I'll dump on the market first chance I get.

No we are going to upgrade Bitcoin as intended and described in Satoshi Nakamotos original white paper. 

 NO WHITEPAPER = END OF DISCUSSION!

Edited by bjoorn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your "common sense" sounds totally bananas to me and that is why i'm calling you bluff and asking you for the scientific merits of what you propose. We know (A posteriori) that Bitcoin has been - secure, censorship-resistant, low cost - based on statistical evidence collected over the years of Bitcoins existences when blocks weren't full. We also know (A priori), thanks to research done by Peter Rizun, that Bitcoin will continue be -secure, censorship-resistant, low cost- in the non full block future.

I'm not going to spend more time on you wachtwoord. This is the end of discussion for me. Take care. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok to end the discussion: it has been secure and censor resistant and now YOU and other retards want to change it.

I'll also stop wasting time. I mistly responded so people reading this topic won't blindly assume your bullshit is true because it's unchallenged.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps the argument turns into a difference of ideas as to what the purpose of BTC is. Is it a store of value? A ledger? A commodity?  All of the above?

For bitcoin to be useful for financial transactions they have to be:

1. Fast.

2. Reasonably priced.

3. Secure.

At the moment it is struggling very much on points 1 and 2.

Transactions are being processed very slow and fees are too high compared to other coins and traditional services.

Being able to buy alpaca socks and a pizza instantaneously is a great part of the appeal. Likewise, few people will want to wait to play with their expensive newly purchased cards.

Instant gratification is unhealthy... but it is where humans are now.

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"2. Reasonably priced."

I think reasonably priced is the one that killing the blockchain potential of SoG right now. There's a economic term that's called law of demand that state - People will buy more of a good when its price falls and less when its price rises. Right now it's unreasonable to think that someone is going to put up an offer that they probably know isn't going to get bought and pay a ~0.5 - 1$ fee. And if people isn't going to afford to put bargain offers then there is no way a market pressure is going to form. Most investors will not understand this so they will blame EDS for the failure of the market, they will blame everything from card design to marketing, everything except the problem that caused the market to fail in the first place. And from experience, from my brief time in the SoG slack channel, this is exactly how things play out. EDS is going to be the one that will take the blamed and that is going to be a major blow black for them I'm afraid.

Once bitten, twice shy - eddy told me. Should the first impression of a card trade in SoG or a transaction with Bitcoin make you frightened to do it again because you had an unpleasant experience doing it the first time? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wachtwoord not only understand Bitcoin well, but also understands "money" and economics very well.  On the other hand bjoorn is repeating a common myth that comes from main stream and tends to be Keynesian.

Bitcoin is functioning the way it was supposed to.  Inflation started very high with 50 bitcoins per block and decreases by half every 4 years.  Today's bitcoin inflation is now at an acceptable yearly 4% level.  4 years from now it will be at 1.7%.

Because of the constant decrease in inflation rate, miners' revenue is slowly moving from inflation based income to fee based income.  This is not an abnormality as it has purposefully been designed in the algorithm.  This is the way Satoshi Nakamoto wanted it, which is a coin that derives its value from deflation and scarcity as a store of value rather than a coin which derives its value from utility as money.  In other words, mining rewards started to be at a cost paid by holders for the benefit of absent transaction fees (in the early days your transaction went through without paying any fee) to a reward paid by those who use it as money for the benefit of bitcoin savers (Roger Ver admitted that Bitcoin's value comes from the savers, not from the spenders).

Unfortunately, not anymore mentioned in the media, what matters is the overall bitcoin transaction cost, something that bitcoin critics used to lament in 2013 and 2014 when the cost was high.  This was actually a valid  concern as decentralized systems tend to be not as efficient as centralized systems.  However Bitcoin is presently proving that it can be very efficient according to the latest chart which shows that today's transaction cost is at the same level as far back as in 2010. (See chart on blockchain.info)

So in summary, not only is bitcoin rightfully moving from inflation based income to fee based income, but by doing so, it is also becoming more efficient. 

I believe that Shaban from Everdreamsoft already understood back then that true ownership of game assets is irrelevant if ownership is not secured by a strong blockchain.  Game asset ownership is for holders, just as bitcoin is for holders, more than it is for spenders.  Playing SOG does not require constant movement of game assets.  Game asset ownership is proven without any transaction required.  As such, Bitcoin based assets are best suited for game asset holders.  In addition, when SOG assets get sold/purchased on the open market, higher transaction fees will contribute to an ever increasing price of the game assets as higher fees create a new bottom.

 

 

Edited by Segwit
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/15/2017 at 7:41 PM, C4ND1M4N said:

For bitcoin to be useful for financial transactions they have to be:

1. Fast.

2. Reasonably priced.

3. Secure.

 

 

 

I entirely disagree with your statement and would like to rephrase it as follow:  A payment system needs to be convenient and that's about it.

To prove it, lets see what we are most commonly using: cash and plastic.  Cash is fast, it is reasonably priced (the cost of printing), but it is not secure (everyone at least once got counterfeit and it can be stolen).  Plastic is not fast as it takes 120 days for full confirmation (charge back) , it is not reasonably priced (2.5% to 3.5% fee), and it is certainly not secure (your private key is written in front of the card for everyone to see).  Most of the credit card fees is to cover for its insecurity.  Credit cards are more convenient than cash because you don't need to budget every single day for what you need to bring with you.  Credit card popular use is the proof that convenience supercedes cost, speed, and security.

As a payment system, Bitcoin is reasonably fast (6 confirmations take 1 hour to less than a week), reasonably priced ($1 fee will secure faster confirmation and is still cheaper than credit cards depending on the amount spent), and way more secure than the alternative.

However, as explained in my previous post, Bitcoin is not meant to be spent as it is becoming too valuable to be spent along with an ever increasing transaction fee.  Any shit/scamcoin can be used as money, but no merchant want them either.  So lets keep using IOUs (currencies) as this is what everyone wants to receive for the sake of spending.  Bitcoin will remain the best store of value out there.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Segwit  

My original intent was to explain why a card maket under the current ridiculous artificial fee pressure is not happening today and will not happen after launch of the game. I'm not really interested in a block size debate. 

If you have a PDF where the scientific merits behind the Ad Hoc artificial 1 mb limit is dealt with a priori then please share it. I have been looking everywhere for it. And if you can't back up your claim then you are just one of those who don't make economic sense to me. 

A Keynesian to you is someone that askes for a market driven blocksize? Well that makes as much sense as your other opinions.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no rationalizing with the other side of this argument right now. People have different opinions on this and are in trenched in their views. Both sides are more than welcome to have their personal views, to be honest there's no perfect answer. I'm hoping we can keep this out of the SoG forum, if you feel the need to talk go to r/bitcoin or r/btc. 

Right now the only thing we can agree on is that we disagree. Which is fine. We can let the market dictate the final outcome. 

Pertaining to SoG blockchain cards/transfers faster and cheaper > slower and more expensive. There is no doubting that. If the BTC blockchain can't fit these needs than the team will have to re-evaluate what the best course of action would be.

It is a really tough time to be a fan of Bitcoin right now with so much toxicity around it. At this point I don't care which solution wins out, as I can see merit in both, I just want it done!

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, BBristow79 said:

There is no rationalizing with the other side of this argument right now. People have different opinions on this and are in trenched in their views. Both sides are more than welcome to have their personal views, to be honest there's no perfect answer. I'm hoping we can keep this out of the SoG forum, if you feel the need to talk go to r/bitcoin or r/btc. 

Right now the only thing we can agree on is that we disagree. Which is fine. We can let the market dictate the final outcome. 

Pertaining to SoG blockchain cards/transfers faster and cheaper > slower and more expensive. There is no doubting that. If the BTC blockchain can't fit these needs than the team will have to re-evaluate what the best course of action would be.

It is a really tough time to be a fan of Bitcoin right now with so much toxicity around it. At this point I don't care which solution wins out, as I can see merit in both, I just want it done!

 

+1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you @BBristow79 for trying to be a sane voice in all this. I have perfect confident in the market to solve this and by how fast this progress; it looks like we are going to have bigger blocks soon (https://coin.dance/blocks). This is of course the best near- to midterm solution for Spells of Genesis. My suggestion was to wait for this event to pass and focus on improving the game instead. 

 

Edited by bjoorn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, BBristow79 said:

I'm hoping we can keep this out of the SoG forum, if you feel the need to talk go to r/bitcoin or r/btc.

Fully agree that bjoorn opened a can of worm in this forum and that this kind of trolling belongs to r/btc

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, bjoorn said:

Thank you @BBristow79 for trying to be a sane voice in all this. I have perfect confident in the market to solve this and by how fast this progress; it looks like we are going to have bigger blocks soon (https://coin.dance/blocks). This is of course the best near- to midterm solution for Spells of Genesis. My suggestion was to wait for this event to pass and focus on improving the game instead. 

 

You failed to refute my previous statement as you are more concerned about trolling than about educating yourself.

Ironically, the link you provided above of coin.dance proves that the majority of miners still prefer either the status quo or Segwit (56.5%).

Now, even if the majority of miners were to vote for BU, it still wouldn't matter if the majority of users won't acknowledge the new rule since hardforks are not forward compatible. This means that any hostile hardfork by a majority of miners will inevitably end up in an altcoin.  In this case BU would be better off creating a simple fork the way Namecoin did.  It is already set by the miners that if there is a fork, BU will have a new ticker "BTU" and Bitcoin will keep its ticker "BTC".  The chance that BU will steal Bitcoin is extremely unlikely due to strong opposition by the community.

"A Keynesian to you is someone that askes for a market driven blocksize? Well that makes as much sense as your other opinions."

No, a Keynesian is someone who favors spending over saving/investment.  A consumption society is more wasteful and less ecological than a savers' society.  BU is Keynesian because it sees solution by increasing its resources to accommodate more spending.  A simple example is like a company which has a factory with a maximised car production of 10,000 cars per year and 1000 employees.  To increase the car production to 20,000 car, the "Bitcoin Unlimited" management would decide to build a second factory, hire an additional 1000 employees, and then will be able to produce 20,000 cars total.  All sounds good so far, doesn't it?  Except that its Segwit competitor with the same problem decides not to build a second factory and not hire an additional 1000 employees.  Instead, the Segwit management fires half of the employees and replaces them with robots.  By doing so it will be able to increase the car production to 20,000 while reducing the payroll cost and keep the same rent cost.  Unlike the BU management, Segwit management will sell more cars at a cheaper price since it increased its efficiency while still being able to meet the increased demand.

For your education please read the following link:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-03-19/bitcoins-fork-road

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Segwit said:

Ironically, the link you provided above of coin.dance proves that the majority of miners still prefer either the status quo or Segwit (56.5%).

I was talking about the trend and the link also included this gem: https://coin.dance/blocks/historical 

 

2 hours ago, Segwit said:

Now, even if the majority of miners were to vote for BU, it still wouldn't matter if the majority of users won't acknowledge the new rule since hardforks are not forward compatible. This means that any hostile hardfork by a majority of miners will inevitably end up in an altcoin. 

The minority chain is dead in the water if we fork with 75-80 % of the hashrate as intended. Bitcoin isn't Ethereum you know? Ethereum has difficulty re-target every block - Bitcoin every 2016 blocks. Time between blocks on the minority chain is going to be around one hour X 2016 blocks = probably not going to happen due to the immense cost.

 

3 hours ago, Segwit said:

No, a Keynesian is someone who favors spending over saving/investment. 

Keynesian economics is an top down approach to economics. A market driven approach to dealing with blocksize is bottom up. Bitcoin has been a wonderful store of value without blocks being full if you look at empirical data. There is actually no need to steer the market with an ad hoc limit that forces people to save or removes peoples savings from them because the transaction fee exceeds there balances.

 

3 hours ago, Segwit said:

Segwit management will sell more cars at a cheaper price since it increased its efficiency while still being able to meet the increased demand.

You have the economics a bit skewed regarding Segwit as well but i'm not going to go into this because with a 95% activation threshold is clearly not on the table right now. Segwit could be something for another crypto to adopt first but it's so controversial that no other crypto seem willing to implement it. 

 

On 2017-03-15 at 8:57 AM, bjoorn said:

We know (A posteriori) that Bitcoin has been - secure, censorship-resistant, low cost - based on statistical evidence collected over the years of Bitcoins existences when blocks weren't full. We also know (A priori), thanks to research done by Peter Rizun, that Bitcoin will continue be -secure, censorship-resistant, low cost- in the non full block future.

Now provide me with an A priori explanation of the Ad Hoc 1 mb limit? 

 

Until you provide me with scientific explanation behind the 1 mb limit then I'm not going to spend more time on you either mr Segwit. Bye and take care!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You seem to comprehend what Keynesian economics is. Why are you in favor of it?

 

Bitcoin has worked thus far because of subsidization through the initial coin distribution. This needs to move to a fee structure to avoid infinite inflation and fees will never be meaningful unless blocksize is unlimited (otherwise a 1 satoshi fee will suffice for any transaction to be included in a block and that is insufficient to incentivize proper security).

 

Serious question: why dont you guys create an altcoin with your new ruleset? Just use the current coin distribution for initial coin distribution. Would be an interesting experiment. Why do you want to kill Bitcoin in its current form? (MY Bitcoin). That's just malice in my opinion. There's no reason to fight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...