Live data from Hacker News

Bitcoin 'creator' backs out of Satoshi coin move 'proof'

bbc.co.uk

291–294 of 294 posts

Re: Bitcoin 'creator' backs out of Satoshi coin move 'proof'

#291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A clip from The Simpsons is not a very compelling argument. Setting the number of blocks at 2,016 per two weeks is completely arbitrary, as is setting the block size at 1 MB. None of these are "fundamental flaws" because they can be changed. They're hard-coded constants that can be changed in code in a trivial amount of time. The hardest part about changing them is getting consensus on the change and the time it take…

The simpson clip is an explanation why I find your comments hilarious, not a claim or basis for an argument. Serious question: is English your first language? The block size can't be changed because a small number of miners control it, and they stand to profit from the increased transactions fees resulting from the increased competition on smaller blocks. It's tragedy of the commons. This is a fundamental flaw with B…

It took you three comments to finally say something coherent. Bduerst, you need to work on your communication skills. There is much room for improvement. HN is not reddit. Do not make low value comments here.

You argument that miners will always want small block sizes is flawed. Miners stand to benefit a lot more from a widely-used functioning currency than one that fails because it is incapable of scaling. They want Bitcoin to succeed in the long run, because a lot of them hold a lot of Bitcoin. Particularly, there is little reason to keep block sizes small for this reason because while the average transaction fee might go down, the total number of transactions in a block will go up, with an overall neutral effect on total transaction fee. Additionally, the vast majority of a miner's reward still comes from the block reward, so miners don't care too much about transaction fees yet.

Segwit is already close to rolling out and block size increases could happen in the medium term. Or, if all else fails, there's always side-chains and altcoins. The fundamental technology (blockchain) is fine, even if a particular implementation of it with a specific set of tuning parameter values happens to stagnate. I don't foresee that happening though, as the incentives for everyone in the ecosystem are aligned for Bitcoin not to fail, and if limited transaction volume truly starts changing that, then changes (beyond what's already on the current roadmap) will be made.

Re: Bitcoin 'creator' backs out of Satoshi coin move 'proof'

#292
post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First search for narcissist checklist got me https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-legacy-distorted-lo... If you toss out the ones about romantic relationships, Craig hits on most of them.

I'm in the Wright is a liar/con-artist camp but the items on that list apply to most "normal" people (including myself).

Whether a person is honest or whether a liar, they generally trip over themselves to cough up the proof that they say they have, if they actually have it.

"Too many people didn't believe me, so now I will NEVER show the proof, so there!" --- that's completely transparent bullshit coming form a grown man. If it was a nine-year-old girl, I might continue to believe, due to accepting the drama as emotionally genuine.

Re: Bitcoin 'creator' backs out of Satoshi coin move 'proof'

#293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The simpson clip is an explanation why I find your comments hilarious, not a claim or basis for an argument. Serious question: is English your first language? The block size can't be changed because a small number of miners control it, and they stand to profit from the increased transactions fees resulting from the increased competition on smaller blocks. It's tragedy of the commons. This is a fundamental flaw with B…

It took you three comments to finally say something coherent. Bduerst, you need to work on your communication skills. There is much room for improvement. HN is not reddit. Do not make low value comments here. You argument that miners will always want small block sizes is flawed. Miners stand to benefit a lot more from a widely-used functioning currency than one that fails because it is incapable of scaling. They want…

You still didn't answer the question. If English isn't your first language, then it would explain why what I wrote isn't coherent to you.

You're making the same fallacious assumptions about miners that people do about individuals in tragedy of the commons. You think that the individual cares more about the system rather than their own rational goals, but they don't.

The same resource economics that apply to international fishing also apply to bitcoin - both the fisherman and the miners care more about personal gains than they do about the system as a whole. They don't restrain their profit because you project your idealism onto them.

And it doesn't matter who promises what - there needs to be a consensus for the change to happen, and that's why bitcoin is flawed. The previous four forks to fix this block size failed, four times, which is evidence to back this up.

You can keep spinning the flaw as a speed hole though, it's pretty entertaining :)

Post reply on HN