Permanent Portfolio Forum
https://www.gyroscopicinvesting.com/forum/
https://www.gyroscopicinvesting.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=12225
Frugal, I'm glad you're still out there. Would you please give us one random fact about you?
Seconded, and we already know you’re from Portugal (I think?), Frugal, so that detail doesn’t count.Jack Jones wrote: ↑Sun Nov 24, 2024 4:20 pmFrugal, I'm glad you're still out there. Would you please give us one random fact about you?
Despite being the OP of this thread, I now believe it's only appropriate for the VP.
I dont think Bitcoin itself has really changed much at all. In fact this is something critics like to point to. Its doing the thing it was supposed to do any always doing. There are much different users of it than 5 years ago and narratives always changing but the software and protocol are basically the same.Arthur Boe Nansa wrote: ↑Sat Nov 23, 2024 9:00 pm 1. You (or anyone else) shouldn't be surprised because the base case of: "Bitcoin as anti-Central Bank and the US has the largest central bank so they will be arch-enemies" is pure fiction. Whether or not you have the humility to say it out loud, this is a tacit admission that "Bitcoin isn't doing the thing its supposed to." A potential Bitcoiner argument against a rational criticism such as this is "well that must be because Bitcoin is an even more amazing financial tool than I thought." It would be just another reframe among the many that have already been done.
The truth is BTC barely answers any of it's stated objectives (as outlined in the whitepaper). Instead, BTC has become an alternative asset class that is undergoing financialization. It is new and so (relatively) untainted, it is simple (enough) to acquire, and everyone has a (seemingly) fair opportunity to buy and hold it.
Soft and hard forks are industry accepted terms, Bitcoin has had both. Either way, I still predict a soft fork to the protocol in the coming years.Arthur Boe Nansa wrote: ↑Sat Nov 23, 2024 9:00 pm 2. You keep saying soft fork as if that's a legitimate definition for something. It wasn't then, it isn't now and it won't be in the future. (I await the day BTC has a "hard fork" and the reframing begins anew)
Im predicting there will be a soft fork and that it might help lightning, but will probably help multi-party UXTO sharing protocols. Im not making a lightning prediction here, although Im still positive on its usage in the ecosystem.Arthur Boe Nansa wrote: ↑Sat Nov 23, 2024 9:00 pm 3. The Lightning Network will never be a real solution for anything substantial.
I think there will always be someone mining the Bitcoin blockchain. I dont think there will be much change in who or how is doing that in the coming few years. Perhaps more governments mining. Long into the future, mining is more uncertain to me.Arthur Boe Nansa wrote: ↑Sat Nov 23, 2024 9:00 pm 4. To your point of the conversation swinging between fees being too high or too low and "how do we sustain mining?" , in either situation the answer is "it won't be sustained because usage doesn't justify costs." BTC will meet this fate regardless, it will just take a very long time...
"you ensure enough block space such that fees are extremely low" here in lies the problem. WHO ensures this? What is "low" and who determines it. You come up with an algo, it gets gamed. You have some group that decides, and it becomes a political football, etc.Jack Jones wrote: ↑Sun Nov 24, 2024 12:23 pmNo. 99% of the time you ensure enough block space such that fees are extremely low. If someone wants to burn their precious satoshis to “spam” the network, they are welcome to. They only have so many. This is the 1% situation (spammer) where fees might rise above a trivial amount.Conversation probably swings from "fees too high" to "fees too low, how do we sustain mining!"
Mining should sustain itself by the network growing at the base layer. The more transactions, the more mining fees. Makes sense, right?
Let's dig into this game the algorithm angle. Okay, so we have an adaptive blocksize limit in place. Who is gaming the algorithm, what is their aim, and what does it cost them?bitcoininthevp wrote: ↑Mon Nov 25, 2024 8:36 am"you ensure enough block space such that fees are extremely low" here in lies the problem. WHO ensures this? What is "low" and who determines it. You come up with an algo, it gets gamed. You have some group that decides, and it becomes a political football, etc.Jack Jones wrote: ↑Sun Nov 24, 2024 12:23 pmNo. 99% of the time you ensure enough block space such that fees are extremely low. If someone wants to burn their precious satoshis to “spam” the network, they are welcome to. They only have so many. This is the 1% situation (spammer) where fees might rise above a trivial amount.Conversation probably swings from "fees too high" to "fees too low, how do we sustain mining!"
Mining should sustain itself by the network growing at the base layer. The more transactions, the more mining fees. Makes sense, right?
Im a miner, I flood the blockspace to drive up the blocksize which at some point drops a bunch of full nodes off the network which is bad for decentralization. If I keep doing this blocks are at the size where only the largest miner can mine due to latency of block propagation of larger blocks.Jack Jones wrote: ↑Mon Nov 25, 2024 5:38 pm Let's dig into this game the algorithm angle. Okay, so we have an adaptive blocksize limit in place. Who is gaming the algorithm, what is their aim, and what does it cost them?
This is like saying a mining pool could make a 51% attack on the network. Okay sure, but why would they do something to hurt the prospects of the network they have so much equipment invested in? For so little gain. In fact, at great cost because of fees.bitcoininthevp wrote: ↑Tue Nov 26, 2024 6:48 amIm a miner, I flood the blockspace to drive up the blocksize which at some point drops a bunch of full nodes off the network which is bad for decentralization. If I keep doing this blocks are at the size where only the largest miner can mine due to latency of block propagation of larger blocks.Jack Jones wrote: ↑Mon Nov 25, 2024 5:38 pm Let's dig into this game the algorithm angle. Okay, so we have an adaptive blocksize limit in place. Who is gaming the algorithm, what is their aim, and what does it cost them?
But dont take my word for it, look at a blockchain nearly identical to bitcoin but with giant sized blocks and see what happened. BSV did basically this and has either one or just a couple mining entities on its network. A couple letters from 3-letter agencies and the chain is dead.
What does the chart show? Is that share of total crypto market capitalization?Jack Jones wrote: ↑Sat Nov 30, 2024 4:16 am Here's an interesting chart of Bitcoin Maximalism:
Cryptocurrency enthusiasts were rallied around Bitcoin until 2017. At that point, the developers refused to scale it, and many folks jumped ship.
I have 1 bitcoin that I hold in cold storage. All my other bitcoin and bitcoin equity is held in my brokerage account via ETFs and MicroStrategy stock.Jack Jones wrote: ↑Fri Nov 29, 2024 3:01 pm
Smithy, you have most of your net worth in Bitcoin, right? Are you running a full node? Are your Bitcoin holdings in your control, or centralized at a custodian?
The attack would look like normal activity and wouldnt involve any censorship. But it would have the affect of pricing out other miners/nodes on the network. It wouldnt be for "little gain" as dethroning your competition in a cutthroat industry is a huge gain.Jack Jones wrote: ↑Fri Nov 29, 2024 3:01 pmThis is like saying a mining pool could make a 51% attack on the network. Okay sure, but why would they do something to hurt the prospects of the network they have so much equipment invested in? For so little gain. In fact, at great cost because of fees.bitcoininthevp wrote: ↑Tue Nov 26, 2024 6:48 amIm a miner, I flood the blockspace to drive up the blocksize which at some point drops a bunch of full nodes off the network which is bad for decentralization. If I keep doing this blocks are at the size where only the largest miner can mine due to latency of block propagation of larger blocks.Jack Jones wrote: ↑Mon Nov 25, 2024 5:38 pm Let's dig into this game the algorithm angle. Okay, so we have an adaptive blocksize limit in place. Who is gaming the algorithm, what is their aim, and what does it cost them?
But dont take my word for it, look at a blockchain nearly identical to bitcoin but with giant sized blocks and see what happened. BSV did basically this and has either one or just a couple mining entities on its network. A couple letters from 3-letter agencies and the chain is dead.
You could use one example in a forum post, or we can look at how many BSV (large block) nodes there are and how many BTC (small block) nodes there are.Jack Jones wrote: ↑Fri Nov 29, 2024 3:01 pm let's see how this decentralization argument played out seven years later:
Smithy, you have most of your net worth in Bitcoin, right? Are you running a full node? Are your Bitcoin holdings in your control, or centralized at a custodian?
I'd like to see transaction fees be a more substantial part of the block reward, but think the pendulum will swing back and forth on fees over time. For example the in the past 2 years we have seen higher relative fees, but if the new offchain scaling ideas Ive hypothesized come to fruition widely, we will likely see a relative drop in transaction fees. How the network behaves as the block subsidy drops is still something Im not sure how will play out. But Im not a doomer on this front either.Jack Jones wrote: ↑Fri Nov 29, 2024 3:01 pm BitcoinintheVP:
In your vision of Bitcoin, do fees continue to rise as Bitcoin becomes more successful?
"Don't mean to sound like a broken record"
?