|
I'd advise trader here to secure their long position.
We have consensus.
|
|
|
|
[23:26] <BlueMatt> thats probably still really tight, but I'd say at least a year
[23:27] <wangchun> BlueMatt: I agree
[23:27] <wangchun> Then we are talking something not happen until 2017 CONSENSUS IS FORMING
FORK CLASSIC
#REKT |
|
|
|
wheels falling off the Classic wagon already? put it up on the free market to decide  HaoBTC will continue to increase hashrate, support Bitcoin and support block size increase.
By Wu Gang
We support block size increase. The most ideal would be that the increase will be realised via the Bitcoin-core. We will also support Bitcoin-classic, if it proves to be the most agreed-upon. As long as a proposal is reasonable and reliable, we will give it our support.
Honey moon over?  |
|
|
|
https://medium.com/@bramcohen/whiny-ragequitting-cab164b1e88#.p36xki7ewBrammm cohennn THROUGH THE TABLES!!  There is overwhelming alignment among people doing Bitcoin development on the path forward. The popular perception of internal division is caused by having a camp consisting of Mike Hearn, Jeff Garzik, and Gavin Andresen who are doing a good job of whipping up popular support and talking to the press. Compounding the problem is Gavin’s previous role as the public face of Bitcoin and the journalistic fetish for ‘impartiality’, which frequently means that anyone who has a strong opinion is ‘biased’, so ‘equal time’ is given to the ‘two sides’, without considering the possibility that if one side is a small minority who the experts are all strongly opposed to it might be because they are, you know, wrong.
The anti-intellectual, soundbite-driven side will always come off sounding better, while the side which gives appropriate caveats and states flatly that there’s overwhelming evidence for certain facts will come across as wishy-washy and condescending. The truth is usually the exact opposite. The real world tends to be complicated.
|
|
|
|
Speaking of the return of the prodigal son.... surely there's some memes in there   Stick a beard on it! |
|
|
|
I don't understand why the mining pools suddenly have changed opinion?
I thought they were OK with seg wit + other fixes in the future.
segwit will cause forks by: 1. not sending out signature data. which makes other clients limp and flacid 2. when sending signatures. it pretends to send 2mb of tx data but actually sends 3mb if all the different implementations just agreed on 2mb (not 4, not  then segwit will still screw over the other implementations. and that is what segwit wants.. dominance. forcing people to upgrade to segwit instead of the freedom to use any implementation they want. franky1 how about you go over to #bitcoin-dev on freenode and ask someone to lay it down for you. Even gmaxwell is there right now! it's clear you don't grok it and any time you attempt to debunk it you confuse yourself even more. |
|
|
|
|
To all regular posters here I apologize for having attracted the trolls.
|
|
|
|
There is clear economic incentives for all nodes involved with significant volumes of transactions to upgrade (less fees paid in agreggate). The adoption metric is not to be evaluated on a per-node basis. As far as these large wallet providers are concerned the roll out could be immediate following the release of Seg Wit. So the scenario above is far from "optimistic" |
|
|
|
that link proves my pt. SW is not a good scaling solution. [/quote] It provides effectively the same increase as a 2MB increase without the hassle of a hard fork. It is live on testnet. It avoids significant economic damages to the ecosystem brought about by uncertainty of a clearly contentious hard fork. |
|
|
|
SW, at it's theoretical maximum, will force you to transmit 4MB worth of data for only a 1.75MB maximum gain in tx's and associated fees. how does that help you vs a simple blocksize increase to 4MB worth of pure tx's and fees?
This is a complete lie and misfabrication. macbook-air please, if you are wang chun, do consult with the Core devs. Segwit is the most responsible way to end this dead lock for now and will provide for ample time and headroom to optimize the propagation problems so that a 2MB hard fork may go through with absolute network consensus down the road. There is still clear dissent amongst users about a contentious hard fork and while miners may agree it would create a bad precedent for you to force this on the community. please point out the technical error. First not one miner is forced to mine anything whatsoever. They will pick whatever transactions they wish and will be incentivized to pick Seg Witness tx since they will come with more fees per bytes. As for the 4MB you present it in a disingenuous way that propose the maximum gains necessarily translates to a 4MB block. Here's how it actually works: That would be 1.6MB and 2MB of total actual data if you hit the limits with real transactions, so it's more like a 1.8x increase for real transactions afaics, even with substantial use of multisig addresses.
The 4MB consensus limit could only be hit by having a single trivial transaction using as little base data as possible, then a single huge 4MB witness. So people trying to abuse the system have 4x the blocksize for 1 block's worth of fees, while people using it as intended only get 1.6x or 2x the blocksize... That seems kinda backwards.
|
|
|
|
Core alienated themselves from the process by refusing to compromise, segwit while awesome is a highly complex change requiring not only nodes, but every service and software that parses the blockchain to upgrade their proprietary software... It may not be as fast to roll out as you predict...
Sound engineering is not made under populist pressure. There urgency of the situation is fabricated and there are no compromise to be made except maybe to indicate an intent to hard fork down the road. The SegWit testnet is live meaning everyone can start learning and getting their platform to support it once it's ready for release. Bitcoin Classic proposes to hard fork the network in a mere 3 months with a FOUR WEEKS grace periods for nodes. This is plainly irresponsible and there certainly are NO justification to force through such a precipitated roll out. We risk losing a significant fraction of the network nodes which will cause great damage to the decentralization of Bitcoin. Moreover such consensus change should not happen without 95% miner support. Otherwise it should be considered an attack by the majority miners and an abuse of their position. If, the network is to go through a hard fork then please have it happen in an orderly fashion so as to not cast Bitcoin in a bad light once again. |
|
|
|
SW, at it's theoretical maximum, will force you to transmit 4MB worth of data for only a 1.75MB maximum gain in tx's and associated fees. how does that help you vs a simple blocksize increase to 4MB worth of pure tx's and fees?
This is a complete lie and misfabrication. macbook-air please, if you are wang chun, do consult with the Core devs. Segwit is the most responsible way to end this dead lock for now and will provide for ample time and headroom to optimize the propagation problems so that a 2MB hard fork may go through with absolute network consensus down the road. There is still clear dissent amongst users about a contentious hard fork and while miners may agree it would create a bad precedent for you to force this on the community. Segwit is great, but clearly it has not ended the deadlock. 2MB now followed by core roadmap is an amicable compromise. It has not because people have largely misunderstood it and promoted false information around it. Creating urgency under the pretense of a "crisis" is NOT an amicable compromise, especially with the way the Core developers are being alineated from the process. A soft fork rollout of segwit can happen much faster than a hard fork and provide immediate increase in the throughput provided major wallet providers get on board. It is absolutely necessary that miners reconsider their position since clearly there has been a lack of communication as to the benefits of seg wit and its minimal downside vs. the socio-economic mess that would ensue following a precipitated hard fork. |
|
|
|
SW, at it's theoretical maximum, will force you to transmit 4MB worth of data for only a 1.75MB maximum gain in tx's and associated fees. how does that help you vs a simple blocksize increase to 4MB worth of pure tx's and fees?
This is a complete lie and misfabrication. macbook-air please, if you are wang chun, do consult with the Core devs. Segwit is the most responsible way to end this dead lock for now and will provide for ample time and headroom to optimize the propagation problems so that a 2MB hard fork may go through with absolute network consensus down the road. There is still clear dissent amongst users about a contentious hard fork and while miners may agree it would create a bad precedent for you to force this on the community. |
|
|
|
"Raise the block size!" they said. "We have consensus!" they said. "Market is going to rally around big blocks" they said. welp |
|
|
|
bitcoin serves as a fungible currency You mean like how the 13,000 BTC stolen from Cryptsy are fungible? https://www.walletexplorer.com/wallet/0c07e0bec1002bd2BigVern must be mistaken when he says "If they are returned, then we will assume that no harm was meant and will not take any action to reveal who you are. If not, well, then I suppose the entire community will be looking for you." Last we heard of the guy he was flying out to China isn't it? These 13,000 coins will find their way diluted into the market in due time. |
|
|
|
Will keep the thread open for awhile so everyone can partake in dancing on the grave as we celebrate Mike's memory. |
|
|
|
Seeing as Mike cared enough to have his obituaries penned up by the New York Time it's only right to include a posthumous mention in this very thread. With no further ado here is the very best rendition of today's events with commentary from Qntra. The focus of Popper's piece is on the Blocksize distraction Hearn was involved in. Little was made by Popper of Hearn's previous Bitcoin software development. Let's go over a shorter but more comprehensive history of Mike's "contributions":
BitcoinJ, a software library in Java created for and still featured in some Bitcoin SPV clients.
Contributions to "Bitcoin" v0.82 where two changes pushed by Hearn were introduced:
Blockchain handling databased changed to LevelDB, leading to the Fork of March 2013.
Bloom Filters, which lead to several means to remotely crash bitcoin nodes serving them, and presented a perennial annoyance to nodes not serving them until recently.
Clients descended from the v0.8 series will likely have to keep addressing bugs introduced by Hearn's changes for years.
Numerous network changes introducing new commands for nodes in order to better serve SPV clients while greatly increasing the resources necessary to keep a Bitcoin node online. When these proposed changes were soundly rejected he made the first BitcoinXT patch set.
He in concert with Gavin Andressen released an XT client for the Bitcoin network which under certain circumstances would fork off into an altcoin, opening the only chapter of Mike Hearn's Bitcoin involvement Popper cared to mention in anything resembling detail.
The entire corpus of Mike Hearn's body of work directed at Bitcoin aimed to transform Bitcoin from itself into something else readily centralized and controlled by the extant fiat order. Mike Hearn's work was dominated by measures which ever so slightly increase the ease3 of using SPV clients at substantial expense to the operators of the Bitcoin full nodes making the network possible. He even openly advocated a future for Bitcoin where nodes had to exist on Google's scale and in a number that could be counted with the fingers of one hand.
Mike Hearn was not the first and will definitely not be the last agent of sabotage directed towards Bitcoin projects. In Mike's place other agents continue the work he started, with their every new attempt against Bitcoin more desperate than their last. For reference here is the market's reaction to Gavin Andresen & Mike Hearn's one two punch. Always good for squeezing freeloading weak hands.  Don't forget to buy the dip and have a thought for Mike! Another one bites the dust but don't expect honeybadger to care. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
