From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D0C71273 for ; Sun, 28 Jun 2015 16:37:26 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail.bihthai.net (unknown [5.255.87.165]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C8EB7112 for ; Sun, 28 Jun 2015 16:37:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [10.8.0.6] (unknown [10.8.0.6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: venzen) by mail.bihthai.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D682B2042F; Sun, 28 Jun 2015 18:38:03 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <559022BE.2060503@mail.bihthai.net> Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2015 23:37:18 +0700 From: Venzen Khaosan Organization: Bihthai Bai Mai User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Aaron Voisine References: <20150627074259.GA25420@amethyst.visucore.com> <20150627095501.C59B541A40@smtp.hushmail.com> <558E78CB.7070207@mail.bihthai.net> In-Reply-To: OpenPGP: id=1CF07D66; url=pool.sks-keyservers.net Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RDNS_NONE autolearn=no version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] The need for larger blocks X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: venzen@mail.bihthai.net List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2015 16:37:26 -0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 06/28/2015 02:55 AM, Aaron Voisine wrote: > On Sat, Jun 27, 2015 at 3:19 AM, Venzen Khaosan > > wrote: > > > That is a false assumption. Given the increased adoption of Bitcoin > by users and businesses during the past year, does the price chart > reflect greater value or price? Of course not, the price chart is > at terminal lows. Fact not fiction. > > > You're not taking speculative cycles into account. For most of 2013 > the price was in the $100 range. Adoption as a store-of-value is > what determines the price over the long term, as with any monetary > commodity. Aaron, I am most definitely taking speculative cycles into account - I write Bitcoin market analysis reports on a daily basis. Since discussion is exploring notions of "value" and assumptions about "what increases value" I will post the following. You're correct to point to the speculative influence, since Bitcoin having the fundamentals it does, and being a commodity that floats freely in the market, without centralized control - plus being unregulated - it is a speculator's wildest dream come true. In this case its exchange value (to fiat) is based on social mood and perception and not on underlying (fundamental) value. I think that is what you imply, too. What is specifically relevant to the wider discussion, is your mention of *Commodity Money*, because the term accurately describes a major facet of Bitcoin's function and role. Bitcoin's exchange rate, as a commodity money floating freely in the market, will go up and down according to speculative cycles and we should conceptually separate its valuation in fiat terms, from its fundamental value which is: mathematical consensus, cryptographic transaction security and censorship resistance, etc. These values are critically reliant on Bitcoin's *degree of decentralization* for them to remain true and for Bitcoin to retain its meaning, and, therefore, its value. That is what I point out when I say "greater adoption has not reflected in the price chart". And that may remain the case for evermore because the value is in the protocol, the blockchain and its utility and degree of decentralization, not in the chart or the size of the user base (however, I'm by no means proposing that the user base be limited - only that it be grown with primary reference to the requirements imposed by decentralization). I argue that we already know what the value of Bitcoin is. In its current form Bitcoin most likely fulfills 80% or 90% of its eventual fully evolved value. Increased adoption will not strengthen the fundamentals, so let's proceed with scaling that will safeguard Bitcoin's fundamental value and implement protections that ensure quality of decentralization. Given the start of a new speculative cycle for Bitcoin and the possibility of a global liquidity crisis in the coming months or years, block utilization may increase more rapidly than suggested by current trends. Utilization may ramp up in a spike, so I agree with suggestions made here for starting tests of a larger blocksize (2-8MB), or for speeding up blocktime (whichever is technically preferred). Gavin Andresen has committed (if i recall correctly) to tests of 8MB blocks, so a different size test can be agreed by Core developers. Once test data and fork outcomes can be reviewed then decision making has actual parameters to proceed from. Venzen Khaosan -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJVkCK8AAoJEGwAhlQc8H1m7c0IAKBjj3QHhBh5cqDKrVDpPsfv GEdmjC4CVC+OCZR5TjJ71fsbx9s/9Yh1sglKPfKmInBbgUFeLuermpTnAC+GAEq9 rTPJgGKIIqax2vU9E8fLYrUC/uNk8wdB7PG50tQG+kOWATZOXWimy3Qi1hxOFLNI bWhRlwIW4tO9HTz6M1WLNyv6T1G7eaUGskW3xODgmr69/ISbG4f/uv7Yy1leEu+r 64hwrswBkvIWeLvPJ3lkuA862HZxbLRkoehEpH3ULTUQ3bDJ1kUkSzi9Z4rwOfHG p02hs69FVrfHckTtV7wQ4owHekiUT8hjob4V/3YrN0/qMGs4JmrxfyerfZ9GQ9o= =hc1s -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----