4 ms·

>The vision of Bitcoin Core that you’re... No one was discussing the Core implementation of Bitcoin. Why do you bring it up. OP was discussing the engineering

>The vision of Bitcoin Core that you’re... No one was discussing the Core implementation of Bitcoin. Why do you bring it up. OP was discussing the engineering trade offs associated with engineering a blockchain. >The idea if the vast majority of people not unable to hold their own private keys, because transaction fees... Key custody and transaction fees have nothing to do with each other. I believe you’re referring to UTXO custody, which is influenced by fees. Miners aren’t altruistic, they won’t hash for free. Choose security and fees or no chain-tip extension / double spending is economically feasible.

CryptoPunk 9y ago
I bring it up because he's promoting the Bitcoin Core vision for Bitcoin, and I am criticizing that vision. I'm giving a name for the stance that he has for communicative efficiency. How is his vision different than Bitcoin Core's? >>Key custody and transaction fees have nothing to do with each other. What are you talking about? They have everything to do with each other. If the average tx fee is $100, you will not be able to have bitcoin sent to your own private key unless you are handling large amounts of value - amounts that are way beyond what the vast majority of the world population deals with. >>Miners aren’t altruistic, they won’t hash for free. What does this have to do with having control over your own private key? You're changing the subject instead of addressing the fact that the Bitcoin Core idea of $100 transaction fees means the vast majority of the world population will have to rely on trusted third parties to control the private keys to their wealth, which totally contradicts the purpose of Bitcoin as described in the white paper.
- DINKDINK 9y ago
  OP was discussing the engineering trade offs associated with engineering a blockchain. Every group engineering a blockchain makes the types of choices he was referring to. To assume he's talking about Bitcoin Core makes you seem like Don Quixote. >They have everything to do with each other. You said key custody has to do with fees, which it does not. The fee market does not influence, at all, how hard or easy it is to maintain custody of keys on a blockchain. Again fees do influence the cost of updating the UXTO set. You're confusing the two terms. >$100 transaction fees means the vast majority of the world population will have to rely on trusted third parties to control the private keys to their wealth People pay the fees that they are willing to pay. Your position reminds me of the Yogi-ism "Nobody Goes There Anymore, It's Too Crowded". Are you arguing that people are too stupid to know how much fees they're willing to pay? Again, miners will not hash for free. If users want low fees and low security, they got what they wanted by forking off to bcash. People who wanted high security and high fees, they got what they wanted by sticking the legacy consensus rules. What is exactly the problem with this paradigm?
  - CryptoPunk 9y ago
    He went out of his way to argue for a particular (and I would argue wrong) interpretation of what 'peer' in 'peer-to-peer electronic cash' means, and his interpretation seems intended to support the 1-MB-digital-gold side of the scaling debate. I had every right to bring up this debate since his argument very clearly was taking a side in it. >>You said key custody has to do with fees, which it does not. The fee market does not influence, at all, how hard or easy it is to maintain custody of keys on a blockchain. I just explained how it does. You didn't address my points. You're denying what common sense says is undeniably true, to promote a vision of Bitcoin where the vast majority of the world don't have private keys to their own Bitcoin wealth, because only a tiny portion of the world population can access the blockchain with any frequency. >>People pay the fees that they are willing to pay. Your position reminds me of the Yogi-ism "Nobody Goes There Anymore, It's Too Crowded". That's not even a point. "People pay the fees that they are willing to pay" is tautological. As fees increase, the portion of the population that can afford to access the blockchain shrinks. No amount of spin is going to conceal the fact that a 1-MB block size limit ensures mass adoption of Bitcoin, with Bitcoin remaining an affordable and peer-to-peer electronic cash, is impossible, and furthermore, that it betrays the original vision for Bitcoin as described in the white paper and Satoshi's other writings.
    - DINKDINK 9y ago
      >1-MB block size limit ensures mass adoption of Bitcoin There is nothing stopping anyone from tweaking consensus rules to their liking. This is what the bcash team did. Sounds like you're mad at people who didn't adopt bcash. Again: If users want low fees and low security, they got what they wanted by forking off to bcash. People who wanted high security and high fees, they got what they wanted by sticking the legacy consensus rules. What is exactly the problem with this paradigm?

CryptoPunk 9y ago

I bring it up because he's promoting the Bitcoin Core vision for Bitcoin, and I am criticizing that vision. I'm giving a name for the stance that he has for communicative efficiency. How is his vision different than Bitcoin Core's? >>Key custody and transaction fees have nothing to do with each other. What are you talking about? They have everything to do with each other. If the average tx fee is $100, you will not be able to have bitcoin sent to your own private key unless you are handling large amounts of value - amounts that are way beyond what the vast majority of the world population deals with. >>Miners aren’t altruistic, they won’t hash for free. What does this have to do with having control over your own private key? You're changing the subject instead of addressing the fact that the Bitcoin Core idea of $100 transaction fees means the vast majority of the world population will have to rely on trusted third parties to control the private keys to their wealth, which totally contradicts the purpose of Bitcoin as described in the white paper.

DINKDINK 9y ago
OP was discussing the engineering trade offs associated with engineering a blockchain. Every group engineering a blockchain makes the types of choices he was referring to. To assume he's talking about Bitcoin Core makes you seem like Don Quixote. >They have everything to do with each other. You said key custody has to do with fees, which it does not. The fee market does not influence, at all, how hard or easy it is to maintain custody of keys on a blockchain. Again fees do influence the cost of updating the UXTO set. You're confusing the two terms. >$100 transaction fees means the vast majority of the world population will have to rely on trusted third parties to control the private keys to their wealth People pay the fees that they are willing to pay. Your position reminds me of the Yogi-ism "Nobody Goes There Anymore, It's Too Crowded". Are you arguing that people are too stupid to know how much fees they're willing to pay? Again, miners will not hash for free. If users want low fees and low security, they got what they wanted by forking off to bcash. People who wanted high security and high fees, they got what they wanted by sticking the legacy consensus rules. What is exactly the problem with this paradigm?
- CryptoPunk 9y ago
  He went out of his way to argue for a particular (and I would argue wrong) interpretation of what 'peer' in 'peer-to-peer electronic cash' means, and his interpretation seems intended to support the 1-MB-digital-gold side of the scaling debate. I had every right to bring up this debate since his argument very clearly was taking a side in it. >>You said key custody has to do with fees, which it does not. The fee market does not influence, at all, how hard or easy it is to maintain custody of keys on a blockchain. I just explained how it does. You didn't address my points. You're denying what common sense says is undeniably true, to promote a vision of Bitcoin where the vast majority of the world don't have private keys to their own Bitcoin wealth, because only a tiny portion of the world population can access the blockchain with any frequency. >>People pay the fees that they are willing to pay. Your position reminds me of the Yogi-ism "Nobody Goes There Anymore, It's Too Crowded". That's not even a point. "People pay the fees that they are willing to pay" is tautological. As fees increase, the portion of the population that can afford to access the blockchain shrinks. No amount of spin is going to conceal the fact that a 1-MB block size limit ensures mass adoption of Bitcoin, with Bitcoin remaining an affordable and peer-to-peer electronic cash, is impossible, and furthermore, that it betrays the original vision for Bitcoin as described in the white paper and Satoshi's other writings.
  - DINKDINK 9y ago
    >1-MB block size limit ensures mass adoption of Bitcoin There is nothing stopping anyone from tweaking consensus rules to their liking. This is what the bcash team did. Sounds like you're mad at people who didn't adopt bcash. Again: If users want low fees and low security, they got what they wanted by forking off to bcash. People who wanted high security and high fees, they got what they wanted by sticking the legacy consensus rules. What is exactly the problem with this paradigm?