Why is it a bad thing?
If all miners agree on that well it's more or less the only thing that can be done no?
No, you are right, if this is what the consensus is, then thats what it is. I'm worried that it seems the impetus is to cut it off before it can be established by the means with which it was originally intended to be reached - by running the software of your choice. |
|
|
|
FinI'd be hodling BTC for dear life now. In fact, I am. In what universe is that consensus? That is coercion. If you are so happy that you are on the right side, then let this happen. If everyone ignores it and carries on as before, then it is a non issue. But why this fear? Because they know this has a real chance of happening. But seriously, if that letter is in any way legit, then this mofo deserves to go down in flames. So. A.N.G.R.Y? Absolutely. |
|
|
|
FinI'd be hodling BTC for dear life now. In fact, I am. Why does this seem so self-evident? What do you guys see I don't? All I see is a bunch of missing names. Those companies represent over 70% of the hashing power. If you remember a few weeks ago, Classic had around 70% of hashing power, but apparently, that was "not the issue" and was not "indicative of emerging consensus" etc. etc. I have a feeling that letter is a fraud ( or at least grossly misrepresents certain views) based on at least 2 of the signatories. Its the kind of thing you would expect when Classic has almost 1/3 the nodes of Core 11.2. I imagine a whole lot of frantic canvassing/pleading has been going on in the background, and people like to keep people happy when they call to the door. The real vote will be adoption. It either gets 75% or it does not. |
|
|
|
FinI'd be hodling BTC for dear life now. In fact, I am. That piece is the reason we are having this debate - from the first line its looking for consensus in the sense of "do not attempt to make any changes..." In what universe is that consensus? That is coercion. If you are so happy that you are on the right side, then let this happen. If everyone ignores it and carries on as before, then it is a non issue. But why this fear? Because they know this has a real chance of happening. But seriously, if that letter is in any way legit, then this mofo deserves to go down in flames. The only comfort is that Hilliard and Corem are signatories, and anything with their name on it usually stinks of deceit. |
|
|
|
you just continue to spout off meaningless insults.
I take grave exception to that insinuation: I always try to import some meaning - even if you dont quite get them. Please, take his glove and slap yourself on the cheek, with utmost force!!  I will not tolerate my insults being insulted. |
|
|
|
the kiddiefight has all been in here and on reddit ... if you followed the actual dev forums it's all quite sanguine, which makes Gavin Hearns and now Jeff's blog outbursts all the more surprising, like intentional "playing to the mob" ... who are they trying to convince, certainly not other devs.
who knew bitcoin was so centralised and authoritarian? Pesky upstarts like Gav and JGarzik. The cheek. not upstarts, just has-beens trying to free-ride on past glories using politics instead of producing da code .... meritocracies are hard for shirkers and has-beens meritocracy my arse. Corporate sell outs running core now. Wait for LN - with USG-TOR coin adaptor from former USG devs (roasbeef) and... Ha! No, sorry, I just cant do your shit. Its too hilarious. |
|
|
|
the kiddiefight has all been in here and on reddit ... if you followed the actual dev forums it's all quite sanguine, which makes Gavin Hearns and now Jeff's blog outbursts all the more surprising, like intentional "playing to the mob" ... who are they trying to convince, certainly not other devs.
who knew bitcoin was so centralised and authoritarian? Pesky upstarts like Gav and JGarzik. The cheek. No wonder you are a.n.g.r.y. |
|
|
|
... many people around here seem to think that operating a node is comparable to downloading a web page every 10 minutes.
You are the first person to mention that. I don't think that anyone here believes that. You've missed much of the discussion spanning back to summer of last year. You're new here. I won't hold it against you. By the way, I was partly responding to this guy who was talking about the number of web pages he downloads in 10 minutes: But I sometimes look at more than one webpage in 10 minutes.
Reading comprehension, people! It's real important when you're trying to decode what smarter people are trying to tell you.
Indeed. A lot of people either have trouble understanding the concept of "implication" or are playing dumb about it for the sake of argument. Hence why Nick Szabo's comment, "If you want to store your money on the web use Mt. Gox" went over so many peoples' heads. Nah, you still don't make sense. So the domain for this discussion has been extended to include "everything written since the summer 2015" - thats quite the leap. Lets say we just keep it to this thread - right back to the start, ok? Still, you are the only person I am aware of who thinks that *anyone* believes that running a node is equivalent to downloading a webpage every 10 minutes. Do you believe this yourself? Of course not, so then why would you assume that anyone else would be that dickish or clueless? I think your issue is that deep down you realise you are defending the indefensible and some part of your inner soul is rebelling at your conscious attempts to promote idiotic fallacies. Do you agree that that is what is going on? Or did someone say something in 2011 about something that we should be aware of? |
|
|
|
... many people around here seem to think that operating a node is comparable to downloading a web page every 10 minutes.
You are the first person to mention that. I don't think that anyone here believes that. |
|
|
|
So, now it is Blockstream against Bloq Inc... Bloq has five customers, including bitcoin startups Circle Internet Financial Ltd, ItBit Trust Company LLC, and KnCMiner AB, and expects to soon add Foxconn Technology Group, which assembles iPhones and other electronics. Garzik said Bloq has raised less than $250,000 from his co-founder Matt Roszak's Tally Capital. The company's board of advisors includes bitcoin experts Andrew Filipowski, James Newsome, Nick Szabo, and Gavin Andresen. If you want your own altcoin based on bitcoin hire Bloq guys?! http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-02-10/want-your-own-version-of-bitcoin-hire-this-guy"Companies know who to call at 3 a.m. if the blockchain is melting down." dafuq? Its worse than that, BMB, I gave them your number....  |
|
|
|
Bitcoin was intended to have a scripting lang like Ether, but it was taken out for security concerns.
with Ether we can have our "smart contracts" and what not without having to expose BTC to security issues.
good good.
Not taken out - just had some functionality disabled. Segregated witness fixes this problem. It will allow bitcoin to run more complex scripts and opcodes than currently possible. Well, thats the theory anyway... I suspect that actually trying to implement this will create new holes that will require a great deal of time to fully investigate. But if its done right, then it should *could* be functionally capable as Ethereum. |
|
|
|
What on Earth could make you believe that those 5 pre-Internet authors could in any way be able to offer an appropriate analysis of our world today? Why is it that you have even heard of them, and not about <insert any number of actual contemporary researchers>? I can answer the question, of course, but I'll let you ponder it... if you haven't completely lost the ability to think for yourself, that is.
Because nothing changes. Modern circumstances may change the appearance of issues, but ultimately its our human response that is critical. You dont get it. Because you think you are special, you think your problems are special. They are not. |
|
|
|
Hmm, only $3 more growth for ETH (+53%) and it reaches 1/10th of Bitcoins market capitalization and there doesn't seem to be any serious dumps comming...  Where can I short ETHs? Poloniex ETH pumpers right now: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZuH4_Zn6YMI've set that as the backing track on my FusionCap screens. Its strangely reassuring. |
|
|
|
You worry too much. Core supporters have been begging for large block proponents to stick with consensus. Surely, when that has changed those same people will stick with the new consensus. Anything else would be hypocrisy.
I do not worry. You haven't answered my question. Consider a 50-50 split. Which one would you call Bitcoin?
Lauda thinks there would be 2 chains at 50% lol learn "orphan" lauda He could learn 75% as well. That would be a nice start. |
|
|
|
I see to your profile that you have a coinwallet signature. Coinwallet was the company that spam attack bitcoin network. Guys like you support hard fork. Hard fork as i say is a malicious attack to bitcoin and guys like you prove it.
 |
|
|
|
Shut down half the oil wells thereby reducing supply by half. What happens to the price of a barrel of oil in the light of increased scarcity? How do market speculators react as a result and how do their actions affect the price?
This isn't a matter of my opinion or what I think.
Meh, I dont think that is how supply/demand actually works. We are not making them more scarce - we are just reducing the rate by which we are increasing supply. There will be more bitcoins at the end of each day after the halving - not less. And scarcity itself is not a generator of increased demand. Just because something is scarce, it does not follow that there will be a surge in demand. There needs to be an inherent demand for it. And that demand needs to increase of itself. Go back to Nov2012, the last halving and notice that there was no major bump in price, and arguably the drop from 50 to 25 was a far bigger 'scarcity' jump than this one. Indeed, the mid 2013 rally was more to do with bank bail-ins and mt-gox front running than any added scarcity. btw - the oil analogy is wrong. Oil is consumed - after you buy it, you burn it and it is gone. You need to pull more out of the ground. Its different with bitcoin. They are not consumed, merely traded. |
|
|
|
Fork Race Update: 315 : 155 nodes (Bitcoin Classic Hardfork 0.11.2 : Blockthestream Softfork 0.12.0)
Sorry but nodes mean nothing i think. I think an increase is inevitably as long as you want bitcoin adoption and not forcing users out of bitcoin into alternate systems like lightning network, but nodes mean nothing in the decision. Mining power coming from those nodes, that's import for sure. You are wrong with this. If a hard fork happens nodes can reject the block that create miners that support fork. The legit nodes are the last defence in a malicious attack to the system like a hard fork attack. And this number says nothing because we dont have an official new versiuon of bitcoin core to update. The other think i like to say is that anyone who support a hard fork without first the segwit patch and the changes of 0.12.0 is simple fool and dont know anything about how bitcoin works. Simple is that bitcoin system can't handle a block size increase even to 2mb as it is now. Holy fuck. Where did core find you? Are they trawling homeless shelters now? Ad hominems , classy. Keeping it on your level.... "Simple is that bitcoin system can't handle a block size increase even to 2mb as it is now" deserves all the derision that can be mustered. And you deserves all the derision that can be mustered simple because you dont know anything about how bitcoin works and you support a hard fork that you will never understand how works and what will do. The most Classic supporters it seems to be simple a blind zerg. I will make only an advice to you. If that fork happen like Classic describe then take your money and run away from bitcoin. The will be nothing to see anymore in that system. The system will simple collapse. I think you just proved my point. Thanks Dude! |
|
|
|
Or perhaps they are periodic settlements of arbitrage trade, generated by Blockstream's Liquid tool.
Interesting point. How prevalent is the use of Liquid among Chinese exchanges? ( assuming your figures were limited to them) I would have thought that any good settlement system should make almost zero impact on the market unless its strongly directional. |
|
|
|
Are you suggesting that jtoomim is not the lead maintainer? Are you playing ignorant regarding the definition of a hard fork?
I have been consistent. Please show otherwise. You've never addressed anything I've said. How have I been hypocritical? How have I been ignorant? The burden is on you to actually show how that's true -- otherwise, as usual, you're just talking shit.
You are hypocritical in that you charged me with ad-hom when you yourself personalise your arguments at one or two people in Classic. Whether its your entire argument, a large portion or merely a constituent part is of little importance. Its nothing to do with who the lead maintainer is, or what a HF is or is not. You need to deal with the hurt you feel and accept that you will not see your $1100 bitcoins for the foreseeable future. Its not Gavins fault. Or jtoomim. Bitcoin halfing is coming up in the very near future and will result in a doubling of the BTC exchange rate. With the sudden jump speculators will pile on and we'll see $1100 no problem. You should take those beer goggles off, they're distorting your vision! Why do you think that? ps Don't knock beer goggles. They have helped Nerds find love for generations..... |
|
|
|
That's not how it works.
Nodes relay information to other nodes but one node doesn't need to broadcast to the entire network!
The burden of 'massive redundancy' you speak of is distributed across the thousands of nodes,
each responsible for communication with other nodes.
Wow. Now I understand why you're so confused about this blocksize issue. That _is_ how it works. Every node in the network must receive and process every transaction in every block. ... from just the nodes its connected to. It does not have to broadcast blocks/tx's to every node in existence. There is no distribution or sharing of that load.
The 'distribution' he was referring to was the fact that I only need to send to my connected nodes, and they send to their pool and so forth. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
