Did the recent bitcoin hard fork just create money out of thin airlets talk payments

Now, if everyone just makes an extra effort not to be a sore winnerthe crisis will be solved! Because of the way Bitcoin is designed, in-fighting is inevitable. In fact it will be getting worse. Those who understand this problem can, at least, feel better about it.

The debate is already over, and everybody lost. My only purpose here, is to comfort those who are frustrated. I hope to explain why the blocksize conversation is so horrible, and help move it forward. These ZSGs are brutal; your opponent has every reason to try to make you do worse. This permanent, unalterable antagonism can be a very distressing experience. Why - even your success is dangerous, as, if you are currently winning, your opponent may become more desperate and more unpredictable.

A fork is the opposite of a zero-sum game: Both are terrible not-Bitcoin-ness. Bitcoin despite being open source, and despite being on GitHubis a zero-sum game. The stakes are high — the two cannot coexist.

To invoke von Mises: Obviously, we tolerate these inconvenient rules because they themselves serve some purpose in helping did the recent bitcoin hard fork just create money out of thin airlets talk payments work together.

So, below, I present: Notice that it is the arguments which come in flavors, not their arguers. Someone who is particularly unwary might accidentally mix all kinds of Flavors togetherunaware of their potential for logical inconsistency. Who should pay for them? For Full Nodes, it is did the recent bitcoin hard fork just create money out of thin airlets talk payments reversed: It does not necessarily contradict the premise that a blocksize increase could cause a higher quantity full nodes by, perhaps, causing greater interest in Bitcoin.

This flavor emphasizes the validation performed by miners. Specifically, these arguments emphasize did the recent bitcoin hard fork just create money out of thin airlets talk payments miners will be unable or unwilling to validate properly and that this lack-of-validation is bad. The B3 Flavor implies that everyone is running a full node or needs to be able to do so. However, such individuals may also reject these technologies as insufficient substitutes for a full node.

For example, if the entire world uses only Bitcoin, few would be interested in attacking it and SPV security would probably be fine. This belief is associated with questions like:. A C- Flavor would tend to support a blocksize which slowly and continually increases, until problematic fluctuations arise, or are expected to arise at which point the limit is halted or decreased.

Thus, Flavor C is more focused on the long term, and those who take arguments from Flavor C are likely also to borrow from other Flavor s. Some arguments object to this, implying that things are inherently better for Bitcoin if no one is in charge. Flavor D would lose relevance if the decision-making process became more transparent or longer, and more difficult to subvertor, perhaps, if Satoshi reappeared or new info was learned about his design.

However, Flavor D rarely, if ever, allows the blocksize or anything else about Bitcoin to change. Perhaps the sole counterexample would be an existential threat: Arguments in D2 ask: It is possible, as with the US Debt Limitthat the quick-and-easy thing raising the limit is consistently chosen over the more-difficult, more fundamental changes.

If the blocksize acts to help solve problem X, then we simply move the limit up as problem X becomes less relevant, and down as problem X becomes more relevant.

Then, we would continue: At this point, you may want to begin a new argument. No one cares about those. If you want X, and someone else wants Y, then nothing can really be done.

Or, search for common ground: Or, best of all, search for a better way of doing things, one which eliminates the trade-off: Nothing prevents someone from using arguments from several Flavor s at once unless they draw from Flavor A, of course.

After all, you can wear a leather jacket for more than one reason: If two blocksize-purposes are equally relevant, then the blocksize limit can only increase when circumstances have improved in both areas. So, while one can mix flavors, one flavor should dominate. All changes to Bitcoin require carefully-crafted, high quality code…written and reviewed by the best and brightest. Unfortunately, the problem of the community-wide hard fork concerns two additional problems: Fortunately, I came up with some promising stuff already!

I anticipated this resistance, and have an uncensorable version on the way. It has been primarily delayed, in my view, by the blocksize debate itself which has derailed progress on sidechains. This one is even simpler, and likely to be popular. Instead, I think people will just try to capture the forum and use it to punish the people who insulted them.

I also doubt that it would really be helpful — if it actually concluded anything, individuals who disagreed would just de-legitimize and ignore it. With sidechains, altcoins are obsolete, Bitcoin smart contracts are possible, Bitcoin Core and BitcoinXT can coexist, and all hard forks can become soft forks. Cool upgrades to Bitcoin are on the way! A recipe for productive conversation.

Well, here they are: Motivation and Background Because of the way Bitcoin is designed, in-fighting did the recent bitcoin hard fork just create money out of thin airlets talk payments inevitable. Until we have sidechains, of course. What is a Blocksize Limit, anyway? The biggest stumbling block so far. It turns out, surprise surprise: I have changed the word 'Camp' to 'Flavor', because it is more obvious that a person can not be a 'Flavor'.

I regret using the word Camp, as it was unclear, and primed people to react defensively. I have made minor edits viewable on GitHub to emphasize this difference. What is a blocksize limit? Help me end the madness: Sample Arguments This flavor includes phrases such as: We are about to hit the limit.

Hitting the limit is bad. We should do something to avoid hitting the limit options include: Implications Flavor A necessarily implies that the blocksize limit should be removed altogether. Sample Arguments The Flavor B arguments include: This belief is associated with questions like: Implications A C- Flavor would tend to support a blocksize which slowly and continually increases, until problematic fluctuations arise, or are expected to arise at which point the limit is halted or decreased.

As these drivers improve, we can have a higher IBL without the risk of severe fluctuations. Using the Blocksize If the blocksize acts to help solve problem X, then we simply move the limit up as problem X becomes less relevant, and down as problem X becomes more relevant. If so, you may reject the above conclusion. However, Actual Important Discussions are always about trade-offs: Just take out your machine guns and get it over with!

Bottlenecks Nothing prevents someone from using arguments from several Flavor s at once unless they draw from Flavor A, of course. Final Thoughts Politics, the eternal science, the terminal brain-disease to which all eventually succumb. More Food for Thought In my opinion, Reddit is a highly biased and irrelevant source of information.

What reddit does well, I think, is aggregate and present links to websites which are not reddit. Its possible that Big Bitcoin CEOs want to get users away from running full nodes, and are nefariously supporting bigger blocks after all, their service competes with node-running.

Satoshi himself inserted the blocksize limit, and he did not insert any code phasing this limit out. People choose did the recent bitcoin hard fork just create money out of thin airlets talk payments speak up or not speak up for many reasons.

My guess is that most individuals, and most Btc, favor a 1 Mb blocksize. If we set a bad governance precedent today, where disputes are resolved by a tiny group of people making incomprehensible decisions, or by backroom deals, or by reddit upvotes, we will regret it in the future. Links Home Bitcoin Hivemind Drivechain.

Today, I will discuss more about the other use cases which BCH is going to challenge, as a payment system and the biggest challengers in that space. Firstly, it will be good to explore exactly what is the difference between a payment network and cash.

Most simply, cash is an asset. It is something that cannot be taken away from you without force, because you solely have the ownership of it, and you solely decide when to keep it or when to give it away. It is important to note that while Bitcoin can be thought of as a payment network, given the nature that did the recent bitcoin hard fork just create money out of thin airlets talk payments the assets are publicly visible and moved on the blockchain it is first and foremost an asset ownership ledger.

And Bitcoin the coin is an asset, not just a utility token. The biggest players in the digital payment network space these days are Lightning Network built on did the recent bitcoin hard fork just create money out of thin airlets talk payments of the Bitcoin asset blockchainand Ripple. First off Lightning Networks. I first spoke about it back in Octwhen the developers first said that they were ready to deploy the network real soon. Those issues have not changed, and we will re-iterate on them later in this post.

The best way to think about LN technically is through an analogy in the physical world. LN is did the recent bitcoin hard fork just create money out of thin airlets talk payments that their technology is both sorely needed and will revolutionize the industry.

This is called counter-steering. In addition, the front wheel due to its role in steering has been traditionally mounted using a fork system.

This means that the wheel is held between 2 shock absorbers, which joins the main frame of the bike at the headstock, or the pivot point of the steering system. This wheel mounting configuration, while most common and simple, combines the steering system, with the braking system, and the suspension system.

Very much like Bitcoin, the LN developers and many of those who support the legacy version of Bitcoin the one disabled with 1mb maximum blocks and segwit they see these self imposed issues needing to be fixed and LN seems to be the solution. That pretty much says it all. However, this was in the best case. In reality, the LN technology at present looks more like the following bike experiment:.

An overly engineered experiment that suffers from having to solve engineering problems that it did the recent bitcoin hard fork just create money out of thin airlets talk payments itself due to its overly complex fundamental design. Did the recent bitcoin hard fork just create money out of thin airlets talk payments, not presently anyhow. The other critical point is the matter of ownership.

Recall that I mentioned that Bitcoins are assets. And that having total and complete control of your assets or having the option for complete control is part of the rights of the owner of an asset. In LN, you are forced to put your asset Bitcoins into what is effectively a bank account.

This bank account is a weird jointly owned bank account that you have opened with another peer, which LN folks call a payment channel.

Even if this were all to work, the fact of the matter is that your Bitcoins are still locked in channels, and even though you can technically remove them all if you wanted to that would require many transactions to do so in practice for any decent sized wallet, which would be costly. I would rather not peg my Bitcoins into the LN network if I could just use bitcoins directly.

In practice, LN is exactly like the existing banking system. But just like in a banking system, the 0. LN seems very similar to this system.

With Ripple, the situation is slightly different. They were originally a IOU passing network, which wanted to have everyone issue their own IOU tokens on the network, and to manage the transfer of these IOUs on a standard platform.

That standard platform would be a shared ledger with a common consensus protocol, which is what most people call the Ripple network today.

The token XRP was created from nothing, and was originally intended as a spam prevention measure, as to send increasingly more transactions to a node would mean that it would cost more and more XRPs.

Also the intent was that every transaction would destroy a small amount of XRPs so that increased use of the network would slowly appreciate the value of XRP, due to fixed number of them in existence.

It may surprise most people to learn that Ripple actually existed before Bitcoin was released, though it should be mentioned that the Ripple network today looks very different from the original one.

The way XRP was distributed harkens back to how money in a central banking system is distributed. It is printed by the central bank, then it is sold to large investment banks, which then pass it onto regional banks, and finally to the regular people through loans. How do prevent some of the large early holders of XRP from hoarding their distribution?

How much should be kept aside to pay for development? How much XRP should be burned on each transaction? And most importantly, if all the tools and applications look like they are useful, what is to prevent a rival network from just forking the code and running their own version of XRP with a NEW distribution of funds?

The strategy that they are now pursuing is to position XRP as a bridge currency for FX speculators to hold in order to reduce the volatility of marking markets in low liquidity currencies such as Venezuelan Bolivars or Israeli Shekels. The second more recent attempt in the last couple decades is the SDRs proposed by the IMF, which is based on a basket of the G8 currencies, also largely a failure. After all, every central bank had a different unique set of problems they are faced with, which necessitates a different hedging strategy.

Which means XRP becomes nothing more than an necessary evil, in order to use the payment network, to put a cost to DDoS attacking the network with many transactions. But if the network is going to be a wall-gardened curated network and used only by registered banks, then the risk of attack is minimal.

Astute readers will note that this is also the same base value proposition as Bitcoin. Who knows if they played favourites. Furthermore, if XRP were to be considered a security that would severely limit its trade in US and other first world countries further limiting its use as a bridge currency for FX liquidity providers.

This is achieved did the recent bitcoin hard fork just create money out of thin airlets talk payments Bitcoin through both asymmetric key cryptography you own the knowledge of your private keysand the decentralization of the mining ecosystem itself.

If you build a token market on top of BCH, trying to steal peoples assets, or to freeze their BCH would be very costly and not guaranteed to work.

Where Did the recent bitcoin hard fork just create money out of thin airlets talk payments uses similar cryptographic security to enforce proper signing of transactions, unlike Bitcoin, a Ripple that banks will use will only trust transactions from each other.

And the banking consortium would not allow a trusted validator into their cartel without ensuring that they were going to play by their rules. Transactions received from outside the list are not treated the same. And membership to the main validator pool is similar to a cartel formation.

Every bank using Ripple will certainly guard its UNL list and ensure that only other licensed banks are on their lists. Contrast this to Bitcoin, where nobody can stop anyone else from participating in mining, — that is the true key to decentralization.

So despite the above experiments in technology being very cool for bike geeks like myself, I would much rather just have the original and best:. Which means they are at least worth the value of the cost of mining them when they are granted. Utility tokens, on the other hand, like all tokens, have no intrinsic value, and are created ex nihilo.

It may make it into yours if you reduced your UNL list to only have validators which were not part of the banking cartel, but in that case, you have effectively forked off into a parallel ledger. It was dubbed Blockchain 2. It was to herald in an age with broker-less deals, robot escrows, AI oracles, and driverless automobiles being their own corporations as self-reliant actors in the new digital economy.

An economy which did not discriminate between true born humans and machine code born automata. That was the dream. That was the promise. That was what everyone spoke about for the last 4 years. Except that that never happened. Oh, there were many attempts. Some achieved some modicum of success, some less so, even others ended in full blown multi-million dollar fraud or theft.

Arguably it drew away most of the Bitcoin developers after its launch in as the blockchain built for smart contracts and other programmable money uses. But at least half of its success is due to the fact that Bitcoin around that same time suffered some pretty big crippling self-imposed limitations that would all but exclude it from being a contender for the mantle of programmable money.

In fact, Vitalik Buterin, the founder and spiritual leader of the Ethereum movement, was originally a bitcoiner, and he was only created Ethereum because the Bitcoin core developers at the time deliberately went out of their way to disable many of the functionalities which would allow for a programming language for smart contracts to be done on Bitcoin itself. So Vitalik did exactly what any good decentralist did when he was faced with oppression by the established regime. He left and did his own thing.

He went and started designing Ethereum. He did the recent bitcoin hard fork just create money out of thin airlets talk payments a turning complete language so that it would be easy for developers to write smart contracts.

But a turning complete language would mean that infinite loops would be possible, which would be a bad thing in a globally decentralized blockchain. But this introduced a whole new category of complications: Relative to the total computational capacity of the whole network?

How would this scale as time went on? He decided that the protocol should just change the rates every so often, by edict given by the outside world. Economically speaking, Ethereum was already becoming much more complex than Bitcoin, and writing and testing smart contracts could sometimes get costly, as your bugs will burn away your ETH as you make mistakes. To further the issues, Ethereum has some serious scaling hurdles. Once many people start using the application at the same time, the network floods with transactions and the whole blockchain slows to a crawl.

And what is worse, every Ethereum server is also doing all the calculations for the Crypto Kitten decentralized application, even if you are not using it. No wonder they have such a doozy of a time trying to scale Ethereum past the point where one popular application can wreak havoc on the network. Well now, why do I bring up all these criticisms on ETH? In fact, I have great respect for Vitalik and many smart contract developers that I have met and know as they are truly breaking new ground in the space, and it is on the shoulders of their hard work that we will carve out the path to the digital frontier of the future.

But how you ask? Did Vitalik miss something? Because the Bitcoin that he left is still stuck exactly as he left it back in We are, of course talking about Bitcoin Cash, the offspring of legacy Bitcoin that decided that hard forks were an upgrade mechanism and that it would be OK to grow the network and add new or re-enable old features on it. It is exactly the latter that will usher in the new age of smart contract development. For the technically inclined, the analogy would be the Bitcoin blockchain transactions effectively becomes a micro instruction table, a set of CPU registers, and a program stack pointer.

All the data, the code, and storage is elsewhere.

Thank you for your interest in ProfitTrailer. Follow twitter and like Facebook 4. Dynamic Stop- loss script - Feedback appreciated - GENERAL. 24 Hour Volume RankingsExchange.