More new stuff coming shortly!!
I want to know what your definition of 'shortly' is? I'll keep an eye out for interesting stuff. Same shipping location as always. |
|
|
|
I knew about the accidental hardfork, but I didn't realize how quickly it was fixed. That makes this whole argument that much more ridiculous. A few hours is nothing.
You're comparing the (almost) incomparable here (Bitcoin back then and Bitcoin now - when the size of the ecosystem is concerned). Additionally, let's not forget that there was at least 1 known double spend due to this problem (OKPay IIRC). the HK round table, had agreed to put forth a 2MB block limit incress in ~1 year's time
You still don't understand what happened at the roundtable. But Core doesn't seem to have a road map.
It does.
I would support it only with a proper consensus threshold and grace period. |
|
|
|
its been fun, altho i disagree with your position I respect all of you, even the poeple that seemed like assholes at the time, i was attacking their belief system, their arger is to be expected...
goodbye.
If you want a corporation coin, then you are free to fork-off now. I'm pretty certain that the majority of people here hate the idea of a corporation coin (i.e. especially Bitcoin 'morphing' into one). 'Classic or Core? Which one is better?'
ha! like it's even a question...
It would be a question if Classic had a decent team of developers which it doesn't. One of the intellectual fathers of Bit coin, Luke Jr, sees that blocks are full of mostly spam..
He ain't wrong at times. |
|
|
|
gmax is going to have to do thing like AMA's and such, to really sell the idea.
He doesn't have to do anything. segwit is complex, some miners won't accept to run somthing they dont understand.
Everything is complex for those without knowledge. its hardly a softfork
It is a soft fork. the point is if i actually knew the details i wouldn't make false assumptions...
Making assumptions when one doesn't have adequate knowledge is bad practice to begin with. its not like we don't understand how its supposed to work.
Judging by the comments I read daily here.....I think not. I concur. |
|
|
|
Ok no probs. Your figure were accurate enough as a starting point. The end point is what I was trying to find.
ie. What average % full will blocks be when the system is at capacity. (it wont be !00% average)
Even if we exclude empty blocks (of which there are quite a few), the number would not reach 100% on average indeed. The tx of size x you talk of is highly unlikely to occur through normal use.
You can't know what use cases such a transaction could have. No miner would choose to include such a tx anyway, except in an attack.
F2Pool already did and it was no attack. I would like to hear more about this emergency HF if things go the "wrong way".
I can't tell you more. Could you explain how things may go the wrong way?
Not really, no. I'm sure that if you ask the "forkers" you are going to get plenty of answers to that question.  |
|
|
|
I'm surprised some people still don't know what it is.
As you can obviously see, people tend to create threads before doing any research. When there is a forum related "problem" (not in this case, albeit is forum related) then there is bound to be a topic about it in meta. |
|
|
|
this is blatant censorship, we should all create a new forum based on free speech
 URL's could have been excluded easily; seems like he had forgotten about them.
Enjoy this, once in a lifetime, experience. |
|
|
|
i'd love to pick your brain and ask you questions
You would be wasting his time, time that could be spent designing and developing. like "so why is it you are shooting for 95% hashing power before activating segwit?" but you're busy, and I dont want to disturb you
Yes, BIP16 used a lower activation threshold. The modern high thresholds are a result of learning from (and successfully preventing) the consensus disruption that happened with low thresholds.
but you're right i should read up more and then i'd be the one schooling other poeple here.
Sorry to break it to you, but you're far from 'schooling' other people. |
|
|
|
Obviously you don't understand how bitcoin transaction works, otherwise you won't ask so strange question. This proved my point, those who is supporting segwit typically don't understand how bitcoin works
You're a bad joke. You don't even know what is wrong in that picture yet you persist on saying that something is wrong and that your knowledge is above everyone else's. Unfortunately they know mich more about bitcoin than about economics, philosophy and good behavior
Certainly more than what the 'forkers' have shown so far. |
|
|
|
It is. But what I'm often asking myself is not whether Gavin would adopt segwit, but if ...Satoshi would. Would he be pro or against such a change, and for what reasons...
Some will say Satoshi is irrelevant right now, so... but still, I have that question in my mind.
It doesn't matter at all. This is the classic appeal to authority that I've been seeing. Just because Satoshi invented Bitcoin that does not mean that he can show up today and "force" his opinion (i.e. it having more merit than the opinion of some other engineer). Don't forget that he had abandoned 'his' project. if you are among the group of people that completely understand SegWit
Not exactly. I do want to have a even better understanding, but the time is just not there. The question was answered by someone else (although you could find this information quickly yourself; i.e. easy question). |
|
|
|
Thanks, very interesting. Similar as with the nodes, if you remove those that have not made an active decision (not voted, not updated node software) core and classic are very close.
I would not label nodes that have not updated to "don't care". There could be plenty of reasons for one not to update in X amount of time. That being said, if you are still running 0.11.x you are in support of Core. If you weren't, you would change the software. I wouldnt call support for classic barely existing.
I would, especially if you read analyses like this one: A date with Sybil. 808 nodes for a maximum of 213 supporters
|
|
|
|
The developers only matter when they say what you want to hear?
I've yet to see a single person who completely understands Segwit and is against it. To me it all comes down to the HF risk & fear.
If BTC would have regular HFs as in some alts they are normal, the 2 MB was done a year ago, correct?
The problem with Classic is that it uses Gavin's BIP which is fundamentally flawed and goes against everything that was learned over the years: 1) Low consensus threshold (causes network split 1/4 and 3/4). 2) Very short grace period (supports the split). If he had properly designed it, there would probably be less "hostility" towards it. |
|
|
|
|
This topic has been moved to Trashcan.
Reason: Ref. spam.
|
|
|
|
|
This topic has been moved to Trashcan.
Reason: Paypal only.
|
|
|
|
This thread contained referral link spam (a high number of links) and thus was trashed. Please refrain from posting referral links in the future or you might be facing consequences for breaking the rules constantly. Additionally, you should read the full set of rules found here. |
|
|
|
Try reading the articles, not just the headlines
It doesn't really matter in this case. Segwit is far more superior than a 2 MB block size limit which solves nothing and adds additional limitations to the system (Gavin's BIP; in order to prevent attacks). “Blocks are full, and I don’t agree that a hard fork solution would be short notice.
The grace period proposed by Gavin is a bad joke at best. |
|
|
|
I dont think a blockchain based decentralized cryptocurrency can be a payment network. Lightning network, payment channels, you name it.
I could argue that Bitcoin can and is a payment network when transactions of lower value are concerned. Transactions are almost instant and I don't see the need to wait for a confirmation or two when paying for a cup of coffee (as an example; other small purchases apply too). However, when it comes to big value then one has to wait. If people use the Lightning Network in the future (where transactions are also almost instant) they will have their 'payment network'. But the core protocol, must stay conservative!
I agree, however there will be some room to increase the block size limit (to some number that seems both safe and conservative at the time). |
|
|
|
Lauda, Sorry, I wasn't trying to show your figures as inaccurate, just that 100% full blocks on average will not happen.  I have removed ref to you in OP. (I only used your name to show I hadn't "made up numbers".) I see it might have been misread. I have also tried to clarify and edited my request for figures in OP. (i was not asking for "more accurate figures than Lauda's 70%" but "how many empty blocks will be produced on average") I think it is clearer now and hope that resolve your issue? There is no need for apologies. The reason that I've pointed this out because it was both unexpected and incorrect (i.e. my number is not accurate enough for such a thread). Of course 2mb without limitations is unsafe. But those limitations could be applied. Core could have solved this.
How exactly is adding more artificial limitations to the system helpful? If I wanted to create a TX of size X, I would not be able to do so (as in Classic's BIP). Segwit is not a done deal yet. Do core have a planned safety net option "if needed" before segwit is resolved?  Segwit is close. IIRC there was talk of an emergency HF if things went the wrong way (not sure where I've read this though). |
|
|
|
Enough already. Stop feeding the troll and let the thread die. OP is a type of person who is always right; it is best to just ignore him instead of wasting time. Besides, the request has been answered a few pages back.
Update: Saying "stop feeding the troll" is feeding a supposed troll in itself by bumping the thread right back to the top of the page.
Yes you keep posting. Oh the irony in this. |
|
|
|
Similar to witness block, you can just add another extended block called 21 block to accommodate the added 21 million coins and corresponding new transactions, and that block is also invisible to old nodes, only if you upgraded to 21segwit nodes, you will have 50 coin per block to mine, and Chinese miners might like it!
Even if that were a possibility, those would not be Bitcoin. You're being fed false information. For the most part these are all intelligent people with well rounded interests and educations in many fields including economics. I would say the same for Garzik and Gavin and even Hearn.
I wouldn't. If that was the real reason that Maxwell gave up his commit access, then that is too bad.
Sometimes there is more going on behind the scenes that contributed to the giving up of something, so sometimes rationale that is explained may not be the full story or the most logical inference based on the totality of circumstances.
I'm certain that that isn't the only reason, but it was a contributing factor. The fact is, nothing has changed and the baseless propaganda might have just gotten worse. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
