Community Directory

Re: Upcoming Bitcoin Hard Fork & /r/bitcoin censorship

In closing , it again remarkable that product decisions are determined vocally in Reddit.

Not being a developer either, I feel very wary wading in here, but isn't the reason we're having this debate here exactly because people have been censored from being vocal on Reddit?

I agree the Core devs should have insight us lackeys lack, but still haven't found any articles from them that Andresen hasn't rebutted well. Although Garzik's BIP100 protocol seems interesting, going through it now.

Re: Upcoming Bitcoin Hard Fork & /r/bitcoin censorship

@adam, for the record, after hours of trawling the interwebs, I'm 100% behind LTB's and Tokenly's decision to go with the fork. It's far from an ideal situation, but this is what robustness is all about.

If you want to do that question with both camps, I'm sure folks would be interested, but I also have my doubts about constructive engagement from the classic camp.

Re: Upcoming Bitcoin Hard Fork & /r/bitcoin censorship

@dpc I wonder about the argument that imposing higher transaction fees is a good thing. As I see it there are two ways to fund miners long term 1. Higher fees, 2. More transactions. #2 seems to be the best solution since it is good for user adoption and good for miners.

Sure maybe fees will need to rise as the market demands, but why make it happen artificially with an imposed scarcity of transaction space. Especially this early in the game.

Inviting more cheap transactions seems like a good thing for all parties.

This makes a lot of sense to me and - to my mind - provides a good answer to Bram Cohen's claims. Thanks. #2 FTW, absolutely.

Re: Upcoming Bitcoin Hard Fork & /r/bitcoin censorship

@adam - you know I am at once your biggest fan and that I love playing devil's advocate.

So, seeing as most of the debate here seems in favour of XT - what about Bram Cohen's response: https://medium.com/@bramcohen/bitcoin-s-ironic-crisis-32226a85e39f ?

From what I can glean, I am still in favour of a blocksize increase (and Cohen's could well be a Nirvana fallacy as Hearn claims) but 2 out of 5 developers worries me and I'm not a fan of going along with the people shouting the loudest.

"High transaction fees would be the first clear evidence of Bitcoin providing real value instead of just being a vehicle for speculation. It would also lead to miners directly earning more money, which is another reason they’d be well advised to not view this as a problem worth solving. In the long term the mining rewards for bitcoin will go away completely (there’s a strict schedule for this) and all that’s left will be transaction fees. Attempting to ‘solve’ the problem of transaction fees would in the long run undermine the security of Bitcoin even if it were done perfectly

[...]

Not having real transaction fees already is a major impediment to the development and adoption of real solutions, because the incentive isn’t there.

[...]

For the limit to be raised in advance to avoid hitting it is paternalistic and totalitarian. It also continues the current situation of transactions being allowed at a ludicrously subsidized rate at the expense of those running full nodes." - interesting stuff, but I'm less technical than you, so that is all I will say about it ;)