For me, if there is no block size increase (SegWit) after May this year, I will use Classic instead of Core.
So you're saying if Segwit does not get activated within this year you will switch to Classic? That's more than enough time to get it activated. Classic or Core . Be same more or less
They're very different. First bring all BTCoiners into big trouble by technobubble, than buy coins cheap once market reacts and finally invent nice joining-all soultion and be the hero and no techno is needed at all.  One has to love the conspiracy theories, right?
Update: Could you pls help out?
Not really. |
|
|
|
anyone got the lyrics?
That was my first thought when I've read the thread. I've heard the song on soundcloud last night, and while it did seem great, it would be even better if I could understand every word of it. writing incomplete lyrics are embarrassing so I'll stop there. I'm sure I can get most of the rest if I hear enough.
Nice try. If a few people work together they should be able to 'decipher' the full lyrics. Everyone hears them differently.
Bitcoin && Satoshi definitely deserve more songs. There is so much material that could be written about. |
|
|
|
I surely don't like to pay for unneeded security that does not bring any advantage at all anymore.
The security of the mainchain is not needed? Great, you will enjoy transacting on the secondary layer then. Yes. And why? Because of that artificial limit. It IS artificial. It is not a base setting of bitcoin like some 1mb block fans like to claim.
It isn't. I was talking about raising the 'fee limit', i.e. recommended fee artificially. It should be possible if a person clogs up the network with a lot of transactions in the higher fee range. The fee that we are paying right now is the result of the market/people. Let's be conservative... well, that sounds like bankers speech. "We limit the amount of transactions that can be done because we want a stable price to establish." Well, no, that is not how it should work. Bitcoin should be a free payment protocol for everyone. And not something for people that decide how much transactions they should allow. That is so wrong on so many levels. And then those guys are wondering why bitcoinfans get in an uproar.  Wrong; it's obvious that you don't have any relevant skills. If you make a single mistake while scaling Bitcoin, you risk severely damaging it. The real question is why are people unaware of this. And no, we can't allow anyone to raise his ugly head to oppose our own blockchain. We are in control and all the other guys are the bad ones that try to disturb the peace and control we hold.
Of course you are in control. I was told Classic was just Core with a 2 MB block size limit, but now I see SPV mining too. Was I deceived 
It's quite sad that you're cheering for a team that does not even have comparable manpower nor skills. |
|
|
|
Same applies to internet too, ISP are centralized and regulated, and they can cut your wire anytime.
This is why decentralization needs to be as strong as possible with Bitcoin. Surely, it will be much harder to shut down nodes at hundreds of different ISPs than shutting down 2 datacenters? We should find a decentralized internet system as well if we are in the flow towards decentralized systems.
I don't think that there is one(?). |
|
|
|
Did I say LN = "pegged alt-coin and pre-paid card model"? Your reply already indicated that your level of understanding for core proposed solution is almost zero, trust core devs and hope for the best is your approach
Your replies show that you are completely clueless and just rambling because of unknown (to us) reasons. Instead of bashing the people who have worked hard to improve Bitcoin over the years, how about presenting valid arguments? The Blockstream propaganda has no basis. brg444 is the biggest ashole on the fourms
lets just leave it at that.
Not really, no. for me classic is better because they want to increase the block size of bitcoin as soon as possible and i like this idea
Both Classic and the idea behind it is horrible. If you want to damage Bitcoin then that is the way to go. |
|
|
|
I think largely everyone does agree to segwit,some are more trusting than others when it comes to the safety of deploying such a solution. so we talk about it, and we debate about if 2MB would be safer or whatever, maybe during the debate it comes off as tho we do not support it. but we are in the middle of debate, when it comes down to the choice of segwit or no segwit, we'll take segwit, despite our feelings.
That's rather redundant. If you are in support of Segwit then let Segwit be. Think about some sort of block size increase after it has been activated (with proper activation threshold and grace period). meh i disagree about the band-aid analogy.
in 100 years when internet speeds are 10000X faster 1GB blocks will be viable.
Which will not be enough to accommodate a lot of people, not to mention if you consider the majority of the world doing transactions frequently. Bumping the block size limit is a band-aid. You can't DoS a data center, because that's impossible. You DoS an IP address. Each node has its own IP, regardless of whether they live in the same rack or 10,000 miles apart.
Doesn't matter, anything can be taken down. On the other hand, most residential internet contracts [and certainly the shit-tier DSL crap which you're concerned about sensorshipping] expressly *prohibit hosting a service,* so those nodes could be taken down *with a phone call to the provider/at the first sign of increased bandwidth use.*
So now you know.
Same applies to a datacenter. One phone call and you're out. |
|
|
|
|
This topic has been moved to Trashcan.
Reason: Illegal goods.
|
|
|
|
*besides having nodes cost more and more and more ( as the adoption curve will out space tech improvements )*
sure i can agree with that. I never said such a thing. You are a strange fellow. but, i guess, i'm fine with the short term plan of segwit asap and we revisit the idea of bumping blocklimit to 2MB next year.
If everyone agreed to this, we would be fine at the moment. There would be no block size debate in 2016 and we could rest for a bit. in reality the user base won't be "forced" into using LN untill we reach max capacity again after the segwit bump in capacity and then HOPEFULLY the 2MB hardfork next year will give us even more time.
No matter how many times you bump the block size limit you will always run into this issue. This is because increasing the block size limit is not a solution, it is a band-aid. |
|
|
|
Perhaps if we had a mesh network of wireless P2P phones (and computers, I suppose) it might keep going?
Did you even read anything? OP is asking whether it can survive without computers of any kind. Can Bitcoin survive without computers existing?
|
|
|
|
Not necessarily.
-snip-
Of course this is entirely unfeasible as each person would have to calculate the hash of a transaction and verify the transaction by hand whenever it receives a new one and that would take ages to do.
Well doesn't you statement agree with mine? Technically one could make it work but it would be so slow and complex that it would make zero sense to even try to keep it running (ergo answer is no). The Bitcoin network does not function without the internet and computers. Someone could try calculating, with the given hashrate in the video, how long it would take 1 man to find a block now. I would be interested in the answer. Untrue. Here's a practical analog p2p network implementation, as conceived by Alphonso Tourette in 1869.
Relevance? There question will be if some people will survive?
For you maybe; I could care less. OP was just curious I guess and I'm sure that OP realizes that Bitcoin wouldn't matter at that point. |
|
|
|
So you do believe that raising the price is a form of censorship?
Artificially raising it to some high value would be. The market/people are in control of this now though. P.S. What do you mean by "diversity of nodes," and how does this diversity make the network less susceptible to DoS attacks?
Here's an example. Let's say that we have two networks and each has only 1000 nodes. Network A has 300 nodes on datacenter 1 and 700 on datacenter 2. Network B has 10 nodes per datacenter. To completely halt network A operations you would have to either DDoS only 2 datacenters, or find other means of shutting them down. To cause the same effect on network B you'd have to invest 50x more effort to do so (exact numbers depend on things such as the DDoS protection). you mean how LN will "steal" all the TX fees from bitcoin miners? the miners whom they rely on the give LN security? tragedy of the commons?
Without the LN there is no future of mainstream adoption. |
|
|
|
I wouldn't complain if the fee will stay low. Since that was one of the promise bitcoin was giving. And bitcoin is losing that advantage step by step.
You are technically paying for the security of such a large network. Everything else doesn't even come close to Bitcoin. Your sarcasms is not appropriated. You know quite well that the fee is not high with that amount. The point was that the fee is rising constantly.
The point is that it was expected. Anyone with a lot of money could artificially raise the limit right now. Well for someone who does not want bitcoin to grow your logic is pretty fine. Well think for yourself why should someone use bitcoin when it is expensive? I think your vision of bitcoin will become something politicians feel the need to stop by blocking acceptance, going after miners and such. Because the reward of using it will go into illegal directions more and more. Anonymity bought with high fees. Or transporting money over borders without notification.
Basically you're opting for "let's rush growth because that matters the most" and I'm opting for "let's be conservative and add TX space when it is safe to do so". If you really think about it, Bitcoin does not need to grow. Bitcoin works and will work fine at a 1 MB block size limit. The fee will never be absurdly high due to the self regulating cycle. Besides, once you have LN deployed you have a theoretically infinite limit. This "the strong will survive" is surely not the "let's free the people from the banks" that satoshi envisioned. The people surely are not only the rich guys that push away the normal people from bitcoin because they feel this is a place for the elite.
There won't be any vision if you rush into untested waters with untested forks. Additionally, if you let 1 controversial fork succeed it is most likely that it won't be the last one. |
|
|
|
TL;DR: Nodes have been DoSed before, attacker gains nothing by it; at worst slows down tx confirms & gets bored.
Wrong. Nodes have been under attacks before, but the network remains functional because of the number and diversity of nodes. If you heavily reduce the number of nodes and concentrate them, then taking out the whole network for some time becomes a possibility. So. Higher price of running nodes is a form of censorship. But ...higher tx fees... are not According to Classic you could get your own node for $10 a month, and probably less if you set-up one at home (e.g. costs like the internet are already paid for). Adam was talking about $10k yearly per node, so we are talking about a 100x increase in cost. Currently, let's say that the TX fee is around 10 cents (arbitrary due to example). A 100x increase would bring us to a fee of $10. This will never happen as there won't be a reason to use Bitcoin by then. Additionally, it is worth noting that the users/market decides on the fees. |
|
|
|
no increase in the propagation delays resulting from larger blocks
no change to the blockchain structure
These aren't advantages of this proposal. You seem to misuse the word 'advantage'. This is also quite a heavy change that you're proposing. and a few others.
This change coupled with the others proposed by core, would take Bitcoin well into the future.
You need to look at both the pros and cons of such a proposal. You can't just look at the pros and come to a conclusion that this is the right path to go by. How about listing the disadvantages as well?
While an exact generation time of 5 minutes requires analysis for concrete examples of potential problems, here's something that I've found: However, the lesson of Fastcoin should be considered here. We recently uninstalled Fastcoin from our pool because it simply required too much CPU to run. Compared to dogecoin or bitcoin, it was using 20 times as much CPU because it received so many blocks that it had to validate all of them. We have only restarted the daemon server twice since July 2014, but when we did, Fastcoin took 100% CPU for hours after the restart.
It might be wise to run tests first and try talking to the developers (IRC might help). The question was why was 10 minutes chosen or was it arbitrary.
So: Increase CPU usage (due to more blocks), increase orphan rate, more confirmations needed for security. |
|
|
|
end of mining don't mean bitcoin will die . it will ends when bitcoin reaches 21 million bitcoins . but that will take long time .
It doesn't end there. The generation of supply ends when we reach the 'final block' that distributes additional Bitcoin. The fees are supposed to pay for block generation by then. However, people need not worry about this as it is most likely not going to happen within their lifetime. Time will show how long Bitcoins survive but my guess is not more than 3 years......please challenge that statement with serious arguments.
You've made no serious arguments as to why it will not survive. If you think that an altcoin is going to replace it, think twice. |
|
|
|
I'm not sure what you mean but a year ago or so I regularly sent zero fee transactions without any problem. Later the minimum fee was needed and now I mostly pay 5 times that high for a fast inclusing. There definitely changed something. And that is nothing that needs a spam attack on the network anymore.
I never sent a transaction without a fee, nor would I. As was demonstrated last year, it is easy to spam the network with such transaction. The minimum fee makes this attack more 'expensive'. Nothing in life is free, deal with it. And the current $0.10 fee per transaction are double the amount it was some months ago.
You're telling me I need to pay 10 cents to make a transaction? Wow, this is really a expensive system! I wish you would apply simply logic. Since when the amount of transactions is constantly rising but the amount of transactions being able to include in a block in a certain timeframe stays the same... then this is an unavoidable thing to happen without a mayor change. I won't even say "mark my words and see how it goes in 6 or 12 months. I doubt that segwit can make a mayor change till then. But maybe segwit surprises me.  Logic which you lack. It is a self regulating cycle: fees rise -> people who can't afford it leave -> fees lower -> people join. There is no doomsday scenario and a 2 MB block size limit fixes nothing. |
|
|
|
It doesn't matter if the blocks are not full in average since there are times on the day where blocks are full all the time. Which means high fees are needed otherwise you have to wait. That is something new.
False. This isn't something new, it was always like this. If the recommended fee is 50 satoshis/byte and you include a fee that is 5 or more times lower than the recommended one then you should expect nothing. Since zero fee transactions won't have a effect on the people, the attacker was sending out thousands of transactions in the 1-10 satohis/byte range. Keep in mind that even though this range is way below the recommended fee, there are still some people transacting with such fees. The attack negatively affected those people and thus complaints arose. As a user it is your duty to include a proper fee. You can't blame the miners, the developers nor the network if your transaction does not get confirmed in X amount of time if you don't. Now ask yourself how long it takes that we reach the paypal fee threshold.
Doomsday 'fee event' coming, all panic now! Hyperbolic as always. |
|
|
|
Also, no computers at all and no internet.. in this case I don't see it happening, even theoretically speaking.
There is no Bitcoin without the internet. Technically as soon as some people (nodes, miners) regained their connections the network could 'jump-start' again, but at this point we would only be speculating (as we can't be sure what is exactly going to happen). Can Bitcoin survive without computers existing?
Seems like I've overlooked this part; the answer is certainly no. |
|
|
|
Well technically it could work. However, take a look at: One round of the algorithm takes 16 minutes, 45 seconds which works out to a hash rate of 0.67 hashes per day.
Unless there we a emergency fix that would lower the difficulty, this would be pointless. Additionally, do you really think that someone would worry about Bitcoin mining in a 'massive nuclear war'? What about nodes? how do you check funds and validate transactions?
If there were nodes with connections, they would still work. Technically you don't need mining for nodes to operate (albeit you won't have confirmations). |
|
|
|
No. Discussions about Core do not get moved to the altcoin section as Core is the main implementation of Bitcoin today. Discussion of any controversial attempt at forking (XT, BU, Classic, etc.) will get moved to the altcoin section as that is where they belong. This is a "policy" set by theymos back when XT was "a thing". God help us if Classic wins, and we end up with centralised mining. No comment. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
