polycryptoblog



Offline



Activity: 383

Merit: 252







Sr. MemberActivity: 383Merit: 252 Why Komodo Group-Signed Transactions are Not Spam February 28, 2017, 08:25:53 AM #1







There are several in here that accuse the Komodo notary nodes in their group-signed transaction of contributing to the delays on the Bitcoin Network. This is not the case. First, our transactions count for well less than 1% of the current backlog. In addition they are a part of a necessary function in the SuperNET ecosystem aimed at enhancing the bitcoin networks scalability.





Everyone has heard of the block size debate and its proposed solutions. Whether you are a proponent of SegWit + LN or BigBlocks or some other method in-between, most all can agree something needs done. Komodo aims at tackling current and future need for storing data on a secure distributed ledger through its scalability mechanism known as " Delayed Proof-of-Work ".



Delayed Proof-of-Work works by receiving submissions from third-party blockchains and recording their hashes into a Komodo Block. The blockhash of that block is then submitted in a group-signed transaction to Bitcoin's Network through a group of elected node operators. This signed transaction forms a "checkpoint" where if at a future time either a third-party blockchain or Komodo itself becomes threatened by a malicious actor or a fork divides the community, this checkpoint system gives the operators of the respective networks a " last known good" block hash from which they can start efforts of fixing their network.





The Delayed Proof-of-Work system is already securing more than 36 blockchains!!!





For an attacker to totally compromise Komodo or the independent block chains that it secures it would have to undermine bitcoin's security, which is an extremely difficult if not impossible feat.







Delayed Proof-of-Work acts as a scalability mechanism in the sense that developers can develop blockchain based projects, in full control of their own blockchain without being restricted by the technical and political limitations of bitcoin or other parent network while at the same time benefit from the security granted by the incredible amount of hashing power that is used to secure bitcoin.





To learn more about how the Delayed Proof-of-Work consensus mechanism works



https://komodoplatform.com/whitepaper/



or to find out how more about Komodo and SuperNET's cutting edge crypto developments

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1605144.6560 Why Komodo Group-Signed Transactions Are Not SpamThere are several in here that accuse the Komodo notary nodes in their group-signed transaction of contributing to the delays on the Bitcoin Network. This is not the case. First, our transactions count for well less than 1% of the current backlog. In addition they are a part of a necessary function in the SuperNET ecosystem aimed at enhancing the bitcoin networks scalability.Everyone has heard of the block size debate and its proposed solutions. Whether you are a proponent of SegWit + LN or BigBlocks or some other method in-between, most all can agree something needs done. Komodo aims at tackling current and future need for storing data on a secure distributed ledger through its scalability mechanism known as " Delayed Proof-of-Work ".Delayed Proof-of-Work works by receiving submissions from third-party blockchains and recording their hashes into a Komodo Block. The blockhash of that block is then submitted in a group-signed transaction to Bitcoin's Network through a group of elected node operators. This signed transaction forms a "checkpoint" where if at a future time either a third-party blockchain or Komodo itself becomes threatened by a malicious actor or a fork divides the community, this checkpoint system gives the operators of the respective networks a " last known good" block hash from which they can start efforts of fixing their network.The Delayed Proof-of-Work system is already securing more than 36 blockchains!!!For an attacker to totally compromise Komodo or the independent block chains that it secures it would have to undermine bitcoin's security, which is an extremely difficult if not impossible feat.Delayed Proof-of-Work acts as a scalability mechanism in the sense that developers can develop blockchain based projects, in full control of their own blockchain without being restricted by the technical and political limitations of bitcoin or other parent network while at the same time benefit from the security granted by the incredible amount of hashing power that is used to secure bitcoin.To learn more about how the Delayed Proof-of-Work consensus mechanism worksor to find out how more about Komodo and SuperNET's cutting edge crypto developments

polycryptoblog



Offline



Activity: 383

Merit: 252







Sr. MemberActivity: 383Merit: 252 Re: Why Komodo Group-Signed Transactions are Not Spam February 28, 2017, 05:03:55 PM #4 Quote from: Pursuer on February 28, 2017, 09:08:21 AM well bitcoin is decentralized and has clear rules about which transactions are valid and these rules are being abused. you can call it Delayed Proof-of-Work or Stress test or Political crap about block size or even it is the protocol and I like sending those transactions and in all cases the transactions are clogging the network causing a huge memory pool which the current block size without activation of any of the proposals can not handle.



and then it causes the fee war and users having to wait hours for their transactions to be confirmed.



you can right now make a small program and make 100,000 requests per second to bitcointalk.org and you aren't doing anything wrong TCP protocol allows you to make these requests but you are just DDoS attacking bitcointalk.org and making it inaccessible to other users.





What makes one users transactions "legitimate" and another users transactions not? They are valid tx's according the protocol, so obviously they can be sent. Looking at it from a "legitimate use" point of view, the transactions serve a purpose and aren't just created for no reason at all as in a spam attack. What makes one users transactions "legitimate" and another users transactions not? They are valid tx's according the protocol, so obviously they can be sent. Looking at it from a "legitimate use" point of view, the transactions serve a purpose and aren't just created for no reason at all as in a spam attack.

jbreher



Offline



Activity: 2870

Merit: 1500





lose: unfind ... loose: untight







LegendaryActivity: 2870Merit: 1500lose: unfind ... loose: untight Re: Why Komodo Group-Signed Transactions are Not Spam February 28, 2017, 11:49:34 PM #5 Quote from: polycryptoblog on February 28, 2017, 08:25:53 AM ...



IOW, Komodo is a parasite. phhttthhh to you.



Well, Bitcoin is permissionless. This is just one consequence of this permissionlessness. As much as I find it distasteful.



Frankly, I don't buy into the 'spam' narrative to begin with. There is no objective way of looking at a transaction, and classifying it as spam vs notspam. As long as it pays the fee that some miner would include it in a valid solved block, its valid. IOW, Komodo is a parasite. phhttthhh to you.Well, Bitcoin is permissionless. This is just one consequence of this permissionlessness. As much as I find it distasteful.Frankly, I don't buy into the 'spam' narrative to begin with. There is no objective way of looking at a transaction, and classifying it as spam vs notspam. As long as it pays the fee that some miner would include it in a valid solved block, its valid. Anyone with a campaign ad in their signature -- for an organization with which they are not otherwise affiliated -- is automatically deducted credibility points.



I've been convicted of heresy. Convicted by a mere known extortionist. Read my Trust for details.

Holliday



Offline



Activity: 1120

Merit: 1007









LegendaryActivity: 1120Merit: 1007 Re: Why Komodo Group-Signed Transactions are Not Spam March 01, 2017, 12:02:27 AM #6 Quote from: jbreher on February 28, 2017, 11:49:34 PM Quote from: polycryptoblog on February 28, 2017, 08:25:53 AM ...



IOW, Komodo is a parasite. phhttthhh to you.



Well, Bitcoin is permissionless. This is just one consequence of this permissionlessness. As much as I find it distasteful.



Frankly, I don't buy into the 'spam' narrative to begin with. There is no objective way of looking at a transaction, and classifying it as spam vs notspam. As long as it pays the fee that some miner would include it in a valid solved block, its valid.

IOW, Komodo is a parasite. phhttthhh to you.Well, Bitcoin is permissionless. This is just one consequence of this permissionlessness. As much as I find it distasteful.Frankly, I don't buy into the 'spam' narrative to begin with. There is no objective way of looking at a transaction, and classifying it as spam vs notspam. As long as it pays the fee that some miner would include it in a valid solved block, its valid.

The beauty is, in a small block block chain, they will either be priced out by users willing to pay more than them, or they will have to increase their fees (and help secure the Bitcoin block chain) to continue using Bitcoin as their supposed network security (I say supposed because I personally don't think their model offers any real security at all, but I will admit I didn't bother to delve that deeply into it).



In a large block block chain, they (and others) will have free reign to "abuse" the system with great ease. In such a scenario, I expect other measures will have to be implemented to prevent such "abuse" and before long the system will be unrecognizable. The beauty is, in ablock chain, they will either be priced out by users willing to pay more than them, or they will have to increase their fees (and help secure the Bitcoin block chain) to continue using Bitcoin as their supposed network security (I say supposed because I personally don't think their model offers any real security at all, but I will admit I didn't bother to delve that deeply into it).In ablock chain, they (and others) will have free reign to "abuse" the system with great ease. In such a scenario, I expect other measures will have to be implemented to prevent such "abuse" and before long the system will be unrecognizable. If you aren't the sole controller of your private keys, you don't have any bitcoins.

jbreher



Offline



Activity: 2870

Merit: 1500





lose: unfind ... loose: untight







LegendaryActivity: 2870Merit: 1500lose: unfind ... loose: untight Re: Why Komodo Group-Signed Transactions are Not Spam March 01, 2017, 12:06:47 AM #7 Quote from: Holliday on March 01, 2017, 12:02:27 AM Quote from: jbreher on February 28, 2017, 11:49:34 PM Quote from: polycryptoblog on February 28, 2017, 08:25:53 AM ...



IOW, Komodo is a parasite. phhttthhh to you.



Well, Bitcoin is permissionless. This is just one consequence of this permissionlessness. As much as I find it distasteful.



Frankly, I don't buy into the 'spam' narrative to begin with. There is no objective way of looking at a transaction, and classifying it as spam vs notspam. As long as it pays the fee that some miner would include it in a valid solved block, its valid.

IOW, Komodo is a parasite. phhttthhh to you.Well, Bitcoin is permissionless. This is just one consequence of this permissionlessness. As much as I find it distasteful.Frankly, I don't buy into the 'spam' narrative to begin with. There is no objective way of looking at a transaction, and classifying it as spam vs notspam. As long as it pays the fee that some miner would include it in a valid solved block, its valid.

The beauty is, in a small block block chain, they will either be priced out by users willing to pay more than them, or they will have to increase their fees (and help secure the Bitcoin block chain) to continue using Bitcoin as their supposed network security (I say supposed because I personally don't think their model offers any real security at all, but I will admit I didn't bother to delve that deeply into it).



In a large block block chain, they (and others) will have free reign to "abuse" the system with great ease. In such a scenario, I expect other measures will have to be implemented to prevent such "abuse" and before long the system will be unrecognizable.

The beauty is, in ablock chain, they will either be priced out by users willing to pay more than them, or they will have to increase their fees (and help secure the Bitcoin block chain) to continue using Bitcoin as their supposed network security (I say supposed because I personally don't think their model offers any real security at all, but I will admit I didn't bother to delve that deeply into it).In ablock chain, they (and others) will have free reign to "abuse" the system with great ease. In such a scenario, I expect other measures will have to be implemented to prevent such "abuse" and before long the system will be unrecognizable.

Well, no. In either a small block or a large block scenario, they have the ability to use the system. There may or may not be some relative expense barrier, but they can still use it regardless. While I want to think of it as 'abusing' the system, such an attitude would be in direct conflict with the 'permissionless' philosophy. In a permissionless system, anything that goes, goes. Well, no. In either a small block or a large block scenario, they have the ability to use the system. There may or may not be some relative expense barrier, but they can still use it regardless. While I want to think of it as 'abusing' the system, such an attitude would be in direct conflict with the 'permissionless' philosophy. In a permissionless system, anything that goes, goes. Anyone with a campaign ad in their signature -- for an organization with which they are not otherwise affiliated -- is automatically deducted credibility points.



I've been convicted of heresy. Convicted by a mere known extortionist. Read my Trust for details.

Holliday



Offline



Activity: 1120

Merit: 1007









LegendaryActivity: 1120Merit: 1007 Re: Why Komodo Group-Signed Transactions are Not Spam March 01, 2017, 12:20:05 AM #8 Quote from: jbreher on March 01, 2017, 12:06:47 AM Quote from: Holliday on March 01, 2017, 12:02:27 AM Quote from: jbreher on February 28, 2017, 11:49:34 PM Quote from: polycryptoblog on February 28, 2017, 08:25:53 AM ...



IOW, Komodo is a parasite. phhttthhh to you.



Well, Bitcoin is permissionless. This is just one consequence of this permissionlessness. As much as I find it distasteful.



Frankly, I don't buy into the 'spam' narrative to begin with. There is no objective way of looking at a transaction, and classifying it as spam vs notspam. As long as it pays the fee that some miner would include it in a valid solved block, its valid.

IOW, Komodo is a parasite. phhttthhh to you.Well, Bitcoin is permissionless. This is just one consequence of this permissionlessness. As much as I find it distasteful.Frankly, I don't buy into the 'spam' narrative to begin with. There is no objective way of looking at a transaction, and classifying it as spam vs notspam. As long as it pays the fee that some miner would include it in a valid solved block, its valid.

The beauty is, in a small block block chain, they will either be priced out by users willing to pay more than them, or they will have to increase their fees (and help secure the Bitcoin block chain) to continue using Bitcoin as their supposed network security (I say supposed because I personally don't think their model offers any real security at all, but I will admit I didn't bother to delve that deeply into it).



In a large block block chain, they (and others) will have free reign to "abuse" the system with great ease. In such a scenario, I expect other measures will have to be implemented to prevent such "abuse" and before long the system will be unrecognizable.

The beauty is, in ablock chain, they will either be priced out by users willing to pay more than them, or they will have to increase their fees (and help secure the Bitcoin block chain) to continue using Bitcoin as their supposed network security (I say supposed because I personally don't think their model offers any real security at all, but I will admit I didn't bother to delve that deeply into it).In ablock chain, they (and others) will have free reign to "abuse" the system with great ease. In such a scenario, I expect other measures will have to be implemented to prevent such "abuse" and before long the system will be unrecognizable.

Well, no. In either a small block or a large block scenario, they have the ability to use the system. There may or may not be some relative expense barrier, but they can still use it regardless. While I want to think of it as 'abusing' the system, such an attitude would be in direct conflict with the 'permissionless' philosophy. In a permissionless system, anything that goes, goes.

Well, no. In either a small block or a large block scenario, they have the ability to use the system. There may or may not be some relative expense barrier, but they can still use it regardless. While I want to think of it as 'abusing' the system, such an attitude would be in direct conflict with the 'permissionless' philosophy. In a permissionless system, anything that goes, goes.

In one scenario, they have to compete to append the block chain (they pay their own way). In the other, they simply use it because it's there (while others pay the price). In one scenario, they have to compete to append the block chain (they pay their own way). In the other, they simply use it because it's there (while others pay the price). If you aren't the sole controller of your private keys, you don't have any bitcoins.

Holliday



Offline



Activity: 1120

Merit: 1007









LegendaryActivity: 1120Merit: 1007 Re: Why Komodo Group-Signed Transactions are Not Spam March 01, 2017, 02:39:28 AM #10 Quote from: PondSea on March 01, 2017, 02:24:26 AM No. In both scenarios we would be paying fees to the miner. The fact you want to have a smaller block chain means high fees for everyone. That would mean Bitcoin will have less utility than it does now which means it would be worth less.



In this case, small blockchain proponents are shooting themselves in the foot and making the miners VERY happy!



So you are saying blocks will always be full of fee paying transactions, regardless of block size? If the blocks are always full, won't the people who want to cheap microtransactions complain? Won't full blocks mean BU increases the size again with their adjustable settings? Won't constantly full blocks, much larger than today, drastically increase the size of the block chain? Won't the bandwidth required to share all this data reach a point where home users won't be able to run a full node anymore?



By happy miners do you mean more profit for the miners? If there is more profit for the miners, doesn't that mean there will be more competition in the mining world? If there is more competition to mine, won't there will be more hashing power attempting to find blocks? If there is more hashing power attempting to find blocks, will the network will be more secure from attack? As a holder of Bitcoin, I'm supposed to be opposed to a network that is more secure? Also, a network that is more secure has less utility?



Help me understand. So you are saying blocks will always be full of fee paying transactions, regardless of block size? If the blocks are always full, won't the people who want to cheap microtransactions complain? Won't full blocks mean BU increases the size again with their adjustable settings? Won't constantly full blocks, much larger than today, drastically increase the size of the block chain? Won't the bandwidth required to share all this data reach a point where home users won't be able to run a full node anymore?By happy miners do you mean more profit for the miners? If there is more profit for the miners, doesn't that mean there will be more competition in the mining world? If there is more competition to mine, won't there will be more hashing power attempting to find blocks? If there is more hashing power attempting to find blocks, will the network will be more secure from attack? As a holder of Bitcoin, I'm supposed to be opposed to a network that is more secure? Also, a network that is more secure has less utility?Help me understand. If you aren't the sole controller of your private keys, you don't have any bitcoins.

polycryptoblog



Offline



Activity: 383

Merit: 252







Sr. MemberActivity: 383Merit: 252 Re: Why Komodo Group-Signed Transactions are Not Spam March 01, 2017, 03:08:50 AM #12 You assume that no matter what the block size is increased to that it will constantly fill up. That is not the case necessarily. It has taken the better part of a decade to consistently have 1MB blocks filled.





Local Blockchain Storage can be optimized using an append-only dataset as SuperNET's Iguana Wallet does. This reduces the effect of large block size on storing a copy of a blockchain and the bandwidth required to do it in an efficient manner. No matter what, there is going to be some requirement of bandwidth and storage space to host a full node and even in its current state with an inefficient block size, the blockchain grows on and on.



The contention with the miners is two-fold. Many large miners either have deals with or are ASIC manufacturers . Keeping the block size small encourages them to invest in building/buying more miners which does nothing to encourage competition and everything to solidify power in the hands of a few.









The security of the Bitcoin Network comes at the cost of democratic inefficiency, therefore a loss of utility. A blockchain based business that needs to operate in realtime cannot have its transactions backed up for hours or days. Increasing the fees accounts for losses to the company's bottom line. If it is too much the company will close up shop or move to a network that is more profitable. Which ends up as a loss to the utility to the Bitcoin ecosystem.

polycryptoblog



Offline



Activity: 383

Merit: 252







Sr. MemberActivity: 383Merit: 252 Re: Why Komodo Group-Signed Transactions are Not Spam March 01, 2017, 03:44:21 AM #16 Quote from: Holliday on March 01, 2017, 03:30:33 AM Quote from: polycryptoblog on March 01, 2017, 03:08:50 AM You assume that no matter what the block size is increased to that it will constantly fill up.



No... I assumed the blocks wouldn't be full, so there would be plenty of room for no-fee (or minimum fee) transactions. Translated: Room for spam. Usually one will not pay more when they can pay less. I assumed (perhaps wrongly) that you were the one suggesting blocks would always be full since you said, "In both scenarios we would be paying fees to the miner."



Quote from: polycryptoblog on March 01, 2017, 03:08:50 AM No matter what, there is going to be some requirement of bandwidth and storage space to host a full node and even in its current state with an inefficient block size, the blockchain grows on and on.

Yes, but it grows faster with bigger blocks, and much faster with much bigger blocks.



Quote from: polycryptoblog on March 01, 2017, 03:08:50 AM Many large miners either have deals with or are ASIC manufacturers .

Maybe that's because there isn't enough of a market for big players to get involved yet?



Quote from: polycryptoblog on March 01, 2017, 03:08:50 AM Keeping the block size small encourages them to invest in building/buying more miners which does nothing to encourage competition and everything to solidify power in the hands of a few.

I'd argue that they have very little power compared the economic majority. One wrong step and they can be obsoleted completely.



Quote from: polycryptoblog on March 01, 2017, 03:08:50 AM A blockchain based business that needs to operate in realtime cannot have its transactions backed up for hours or days.

A block chain based business that builds it's business model on an assumption that it's transaction will be included in the next block every time should probably rethink it's business model.

No... I assumed the blocks wouldn't be full, so there would be plenty of room for no-fee (or minimum fee) transactions. Translated: Room for spam. Usually one will not pay more when they can pay less. I assumed (perhaps wrongly) that you were the one suggesting blocks would always be full since you said, "In both scenarios we would be paying fees to the miner."Yes, but it grows faster with bigger blocks, and much faster with much bigger blocks.Maybe that's because there isn't enough of a market for big players to get involved yet?I'd argue that they have very little power compared the economic majority. One wrong step and they can be obsoleted completely.A block chain based business that builds it's business model on an assumption that it's transaction will be included in the next blockshould probably rethink it's business model.

Yes I am aware that the blockchain will grow faster with bigger blocks and much faster with much bigger blocks. That's why I proposed an alternative method of storing and syncing the data.



The economic majority has no voting power in regards to changes to the chain it is entirely in the hands of the miners. I think it is quite obvious that they will not be obsoleted completely because as you have stated, there isn't enough of a market for big players to get involved.





And for your last comment: That a blockchain based business that builds its business model on an assumption that its transaction will be included in the next block every time should rethink their business model.



That means that every brick and mortar location that accepts bitcoin as a payment should quit doing so and entirely rely on fiat for transactions to be done at a reasonable speed. 10 minutes is already well pushing the limit for time to process a transaction especially for day to day purchases.

Yes I am aware that the blockchain will grow faster with bigger blocks and much faster with much bigger blocks. That's why I proposed an alternative method of storing and syncing the data.The economic majority has no voting power in regards to changes to the chain it is entirely in the hands of the miners. I think it is quite obvious that they will not be obsoleted completely because as you have stated, there isn't enough of a market for big players to get involved.And for your last comment: That a blockchain based business that builds its business model on an assumption that its transaction will be included in the next block every time should rethink their business model.That means that every brick and mortar location that accepts bitcoin as a payment should quit doing so and entirely rely on fiat for transactions to be done at a reasonable speed. 10 minutes is already well pushing the limit for time to process a transaction especially for day to day purchases.

Holliday



Offline



Activity: 1120

Merit: 1007









LegendaryActivity: 1120Merit: 1007 Re: Why Komodo Group-Signed Transactions are Not Spam March 01, 2017, 04:00:59 AM #18 Quote from: polycryptoblog on March 01, 2017, 03:44:21 AM Yes I am aware that the blockchain will grow faster with bigger blocks and much faster with much bigger blocks. That's why I proposed an alternative method of storing and syncing the data.

OK. Full nodes have to keep a full copy regardless. Unless you've figured out a way where they do not, yet remain full nodes.



Quote from: polycryptoblog on March 01, 2017, 03:44:21 AM The economic majority has no voting power in regards to changes to the chain it is entirely in the hands of the miners.

The economic majority can render a bitcoin worthless if they disagree with choices the miners make. I'm not sure how many miners will continue mining worthless tokens.



Quote from: polycryptoblog on March 01, 2017, 03:44:21 AM I think it is quite obvious that they will not be obsoleted completely because as you have stated, there isn't enough of a market for big players to get involved.

If the miners decide to use their hash rate in a way which the users disagree with, the users will change the mining algorithm and the miners will be holding a lot of expensive paperweights.



Quote from: polycryptoblog on March 01, 2017, 03:44:21 AM That means that every brick and mortar location that accepts bitcoin as a payment should quit doing so and entirely rely on fiat for transactions to be done at a reasonable speed. 10 minutes is already well pushing the limit for time to process a transaction especially for day to day purchases.



Yah, a global decentralized network where every full node has to keep a complete record of every transaction in it's history is simply a poor choice to use as a daily transaction currency. Ever hear of a gift card (purchased and reloaded with Bitcoin)? Credit cards (where you pay the monthly payment with Bitcoin)? Layers built on top of the Bitcoin network? If you use your imagination, it's amazing what you can come up with to avoid putting mundane daily transactions on the block chain.



Every transaction does not need to be censorship-proof in a world where censorship-proof transactions exist. OK. Full nodes have to keep a full copy regardless. Unless you've figured out a way where they do not, yet remain full nodes.The economic majority can render a bitcoin worthless if they disagree with choices the miners make. I'm not sure how many miners will continue mining worthless tokens.If the miners decide to use their hash rate in a way which the users disagree with, the users will change the mining algorithm and the miners will be holding a lot of expensive paperweights.Yah, a global decentralized network where every full node has to keep a complete record of every transaction in it's history is simply a poor choice to use as a daily transaction currency. Ever hear of a gift card (purchased and reloaded with Bitcoin)? Credit cards (where you pay the monthly payment with Bitcoin)? Layers built on top of the Bitcoin network? If you use your imagination, it's amazing what you can come up with to avoid putting mundane daily transactions on the block chain.Every transaction does not need to be censorship-proof in a world where censorship-proof transactions exist. If you aren't the sole controller of your private keys, you don't have any bitcoins.

polycryptoblog



Offline



Activity: 383

Merit: 252







Sr. MemberActivity: 383Merit: 252 Re: Why Komodo Group-Signed Transactions are Not Spam March 01, 2017, 04:36:39 AM #19

1) Append-Only Data Set



https://github.com/SuperNETorg/iguana/releases





This is our beta wallet that does exactly what you are talking about for the Bitcoin blockchain in its current state it is a little buggy however a much improved version will be released soon, most likely within the week.





2) The economic majority are caught in a bind. If they disagree with the miners logically they will try to get out of Bitcoin and either back into fiat or alt coins. This accordingly will drive down the price as there is less demand thus hurting their investment. As most holder of Bitcoin do so as a store of value to stop using the network out of defiance hurts their own investment especially if they are not in the first wave of defectors.



3) The right to fork. Nothing wrong with forking code and building a community around it. However this does mean that Bitcoin would be no more if users were so unhappy they decided to do thing their way.



4) There are many ways to conduct transactions that circumvent the current block time limitation, however the original discussion was on the diminishing of utility, this was an example of the diminishing of the utility of time-sensitive transactions. 1) Append-Only Data SetThis is our beta wallet that does exactly what you are talking about for thein its current state it is a little buggy however a much improved version will be released soon, most likely within the week.2) The economic majority are caught in a bind. If they disagree with the miners logically they will try to get out of Bitcoin and either back into fiat or alt coins. This accordingly will drive down the price as there is less demand thus hurting their investment. As most holder of Bitcoin do so as a store of value to stop using the network out of defiance hurts their own investment especially if they are not in the first wave of defectors.3) The right to fork. Nothing wrong with forking code and building a community around it. However this does mean that Bitcoin would be no more if users were so unhappy they decided to do thing their way.4) There are many ways to conduct transactions that circumvent the current block time limitation, however the original discussion was on the diminishing of utility, this was an example of the diminishing of the utility of time-sensitive transactions.