Full again... Say whatever you want I don't like the idea of limited tx every day :/ Fire up a classic node. Let your voice be heard. https://bitcoinclassic.com/Well I'm not so sure forcing the community to go to classic is the best solution though ^^ You can't do that. That's for the devs and the miners. Nodes show support, but they don't decide. |
|
|
|
Full again... Say whatever you want I don't like the idea of limited tx every day :/ Fire up a classic node. Let your voice be heard. https://bitcoinclassic.com/ |
|
|
|
Has there ever been a documented case on this thread or elsewhere of two opposing points of view actually learning and eventually taking the other on board? Everyone's so seemingly entrenched that I no longer need to read the post, I just spot the usernames and know what's going to be written.
To be fair, most of us are idiots. |
|
|
|
I don't necessarily disagree with you that there will be people that want more than 21m coins. An argument like that will never be presented "we want more coins and high inflation for the lolz". It will be presented as "we want cheap txs".... Arguments like "People want cheap txs, who are you to stop that".... Populist bullshit like "bigger blocks" and the "dangers" of "fullblockalypse". There is no comparison between a hard fork to raise the blocksize and a hard fork to increase the 21 milion cap on supply. The former is a minor property that almost everyone agrees will need to be changed at some point. I owned Bitcoins for years before I even know there was a max blocksize. I knew of the 21 MM limit before I bought my first coin. A slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slopeDude increasing the 21 M limit and increasing the block size is the same thing. oh really? I'd like to hear an explanation. How the hell is it the same thing? It's not even remotely the same thing. I explained it to you many times already but fine. Things (w/e they are) only have value if the supply is limited and they have a purpose. How limited something is determines it's value (together with its utility value). The block size at the moment is in limited supply (1 MB roughly every 10 minutes), so a place on that has a certain implied value (this will be the fee in the long term, right now it's not very visible because of the huge subsidy which skews actual fees). The value of the sum of the fees determines the amount of security because this is how the miners are paid (the miner market is a commodity market so it will approach break-even long term. Total fees will equal security). Therefore if the block size is increased the value of size on the block chain goes down and thus the amount miners get paid goes down and so does the security. Security is the most important thing giving value to XMR units and so a lower security will lower the intrinsic value of Bitcoin. Similarly increasing the 21M coin limit will also lower the intrinsic value of Bitcoin because it inflates the supply (more unit available). Next to all this there is the precedent reasoning mentioned above. Right now I trust Bitcoin to never inflate supply of either limited unit (XMR or block chain size) and therefore value Bitcoin as such. If they inflate it I will be forced to estimate future watering down of XMR and blockchain size (and thus watering down of value) in my intrinsic value calculations and therefore I will be prepared to pay a lower price for Bitcoins as an investment. The market will do the same. XMR is Monero |
|
|
|
ledgerjournal is run by a charlatan.
bitcoin could not care less about academics circlejerkers
Who is this madman people keep talking about? Peter R. Rizun is not a madman, but he has been taking a lot of flak in this debate. It might be healthy to run an independant site if you find his approach a bit too enthusiastic. In any event, bct users like hdbuck, iCEBREAKER and brg444 are not good sources of info or judgement. |
|
|
|
I am still curious why did everyone get stuck on this 1mb value? I mean, like I said earlier, why not 1.2mb, or why not just 1 transaction per block if limiting it is the best? I'm just so confused why the current transactions per second limit became the magic number.
It's arbitrary really. Satoshi actually gave more room than necessary, but then again the fees paid back then were like 0.01. That's what I was thinking, it seems 1mb was just a nice round number for him to pick at the time. This is why I can't understand where all this contention is coming from. It seems out of left field for me. I run a software company, which we will be exiting this year (assuming all goes well), and I just can't fathom the stubbornness on the function of this single value that seems totally arbitrary. I would be running analysis, bug testing, etc, every possible iteration of that number. Perhaps even writing a simulation to see how the change of the number would effect network performance, hash rates, probably miner dropout, etc. I've been considering what I will do with my time when I exit my current company, and it seems likely that it will be bitcoin related. And I'm starting to wonder if I should just contribute code directly or work on the analysis side of things. I'd love to submit code but it seems the stubbornness is a harder problem to solve than the technical hurdles  There's plenty of code, there's plenty of stubbornness, there's not enough analysis. The block size problem should have been dealt with two years ago. And if someone had done the legwork back then it would have been done two years ago. The one project trying to do this kind of stuff, ledgerjournal.org, is run by a fairly controversial member of the community. His project needs to be strengthened and there also needs to be different voices on the scene. If you want to make a difference in Bitcoin then this is a good entry point. |
|
|
|
pretty awesome that bitcoin resisted human induced inflation.
That's not even close to an accurate description of what happened. Cripplecore is resisting taking some armor off the truck to allow more cargo capacity. As a result we have an $8/transaction network. Good luck winning any races with that. If you had 10 MB blocks tomorrow morning, you'd still need 0.8$ in fees, per tx, to replenish lost subsidy income. People are currently paying 0$ to 0.03$ (for first block inclusion) while "blocks are full", under the current 1 MB scheme. With the current fees, even with 100 MB blocks, and them being full, you'd still be unable to pay the subsidy loss (you'd need 0.08$ per tx). So you'd need something like 250MB blocks with the current fees. This makes it pretty obvious and simple: Fees have to rise. If fees don't rise, then miners bail out and the network loses security. OR, some new "forkers" will come and say something retarded like "we want free txs forevah, so let us inflate the money quantity instead... why limit btc to 21mn coins? That's ...crippling to BTC... yeah, let's uncripple it by issuing a few hundred million more... we don't want to pay high tx fees you know... we prefer inflation". Who gets the fees? Who decides which transactions gets on the block? |
|
|
|
Why so damn negative? I'm sure you have heard of "soft forks" as a means of implementing changes to strengthen the network without a hard fork. Maybe, you should spend your time on your chip development and the SP50 rather than trying to bring everyone down to your current level. You might try a smaller rig than the SP50 as well for the public (home miners) rather than large investors only. As far as I'm concerned, you're in league with Hearn. We have a lot of new upcoming advancements for the blockchain to make it better without the changes you want to implement. Check this video out for instance: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kSq-58ElBzkAlso, how about you and everyone else reading some "bullish" news for a change instead of searching for pessimistic news to try to bring everyone down to your level. Here's an excellent thread for bullish news: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1166428.2020Your attitude is the core of the problem at hand.. So you didn't like the perspective in the article and you focus on attacking the fact that it was even posted, how is it you can have a discussion when you simply bitch about a viewpoint that isn't your own? People who's tired of the poo slinging is hardly the problem. People like this dude: https://twitter.com/bramcohen/status/697705876337995776 is the problem. And he happens to be the same guy who wrote that article dmwardjr reacted to. And people like this dude: https://forum.bitcoin.com/bitcoin-discussion/bigger-blocks-discussion-jonathan-toomin-guy-corem-t5080.html is the problem. And he just happens to be the CEO of SP tech... |
|
|
|
Is Blockstream working on one of those Turing complete scripting languages for smart contracts as a sidechain at all? Are they in competition with Ethereum?
imo, there is no need for a turing complete stack language for specialized use cases like smart contracts. this is bullshit and is coming from ethereum fanboys. security is the first target all other targets have to follow. ethereum is a hype whithout a single proof in the wild so far. I know it's all hype and speculators drooling over tokens, don't get me wrong. But what about autonomous agents, decentralized autonomous organizations, and the like? I imagine a scaling catastrophe. Could our block chain handle the capacity? Could our block chain do the right tricks?  |
|
|
|
First Classic block mined. P2XTPoolP2 XT Pool - Bitcoin Mining Pool Because we want to trigger a fork to give bitcoin more capacity for transactions
Oh. Oh my. You make is sound like that block is >1mb. It isn't, being a mere ~100kb. How do you know that block was mined by an RealClassic node, rather than an indistinguishable (until too late) NotClassic one? Ironically (and self-defeatingly), Gavinistas can only bribe miners with CoreCoins to mine ClassicBlocks until the hard fork occurs, at which time the miners will only accept in-band incentives denominated in CoreCoins, as ClassicCoins are doomed to be orphaned.  What's going on guize?
This thread could use some train and moon pics
 Happy Valentine's, you bunch of degenerates.   |
|
|
|
Hey Jimbo! What's the good word? Any idea where this current move is going? I thought we'd be going down and sideways a bit longer. Really didn't expect this! How's the weather?
I think we're just still recovering from the panic caused by the Mike Hearn BS. We'd been above $400 for over a month before that crap. If I had to guess at the ongoing trend, I'd say we're probably going to continue creeping slowly up, at least until the Chinese new year season is done. After that we might see a more significant movement, hopefully up. The weather? Freaking cold. Halfway through one of the mildest Februaries on record, we get a real cold snap, -26C with a windchill of -33. Brrr. Time to put the soup pot on. I had to drive to my mine the other day. Checked weather forecast, it said -11C. When I got there it was -32C. I didn't notice before the metal in the car started making popping sounds. Weird stuff starts happening at that temperature. |
|
|
|
Really, is that your answer? You can say the same thing for most alts. As a holder of Ethereum, it is a genuine question and point. And as another poster said, they are different algorithms, so how can we compare them? How would you attack Ethereum (which I have NO desire to do)? Its about sharing! My point was that Ethereums network is safe enough on the hash power front. Nor is hash power indicative of how much "trust" or "faith" the industry has in Ethereum. Nobody is going to start a large scale farm or try to make asics for Ethererum. The plan was all along to move to PoS as soon as possible. Ethereum mining is physically distributed in a way Bitcoin isn't, and it will remain so until PoS mining kicks in. After that, who knows what will happen. Thanks for the answers, appreciated as I have not been keeping up with Ethereum. It will be an exciting time when they move to POS. That is one big experiment. Wow. All of this crypto thing is still one big experiment!! Just don't go too far and go David Carradine on us. |
|
|
|
Fuck me. It's hard to imagine a worse call. Well, the market has spoken and the market always gets the last word.
This is weird. You're talking like a human again. Have you been sampling that eco-fuel? |
|
|
|
Really, is that your answer? You can say the same thing for most alts. As a holder of Ethereum, it is a genuine question and point. And as another poster said, they are different algorithms, so how can we compare them? How would you attack Ethereum (which I have NO desire to do)? Its about sharing! My point was that Ethereums network is safe enough on the hash power front. Nor is hash power indicative of how much "trust" or "faith" the industry has in Ethereum. Nobody is going to start a large scale farm or try to make asics for Ethererum. The plan was all along to move to PoS as soon as possible. Ethereum mining is physically distributed in a way Bitcoin isn't, and it will remain so until PoS mining kicks in. After that, who knows what will happen. |
|
|
|
Aztecminer likely sold his account to a shill. A year ago he was bullish and a active miner.
You can't fake his brand of crazy. No offense, Aztec. |
|
|
|
This is why it's super important to have more than 99.99% of the hash rate with you if you're going to hard fork: http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2016-February/012396.htmlI'm assuming there are literally ZERO miners left on the weaker branch.
The attacker in this scenario simply rents hashing for a few days in advance
to build his fake chain, then broadcasts the blocks to the unsuspecting
merchant at ~10 block intervals so it looks like everything is working normal
again. There are lots of mining rental services out there, and miners quite
often do not care to avoid selling hashrate to the highest bidder regardless
of what they're mining. 10 blocks worth costs a little more than 250 BTC -
soon, that will be 125 BTC.https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/44nkg3/responding_to_gavin_courtesy_bip_message_lukejr/
[]gavinandresenGavin Andresen - Bitcoin Dev 8 points 5 days ago
That response baffled me, too.
Nothing stops somebody from trying this attack right now; you don't need a hard fork to try to Sybil attack and then feed somebody a fake chain.
It's stupid to try, you will fail... |
|
|
|
I appreciate your honesty with being a troll... but we really do not need this distraction right now as we need to work together on finding solutions to increasing capacity and scalability.
There is no such thing as trust less solutions, all we can do is manage trust and mitigate risk. These payment channel are a great piece of the puzzle to the capacity problem.
Well at least you admit it's a problem. That's better than most. Almost Everyone is working towards greater capacity, we just disagree on the priorities and methods. You are describing the Bitcoin Assets crowd that is 0.00002% of bitcoiners. It is misleading to suggest otherwise. Most want bigger blocks and more capacity and view 7tps as a problem. They seem to be 50% of this forum. Gmaxwell buddying up with them in the echo chambers isn't reassuring either. |
|
|
|
It still requires trust, but as you say, for such small amounts its probably a moot point. I do actually like it, but I get such a buzz from winding you up that I just had to say it.  I appreciate your honesty with being a troll... but we really do not need this distraction right now as we need to work together on finding solutions to increasing capacity and scalability. There is no such thing as trust less solutions, all we can do is manage trust and mitigate risk. These payment channel are a great piece of the puzzle to the capacity problem. Well at least you admit it's a problem. That's better than most. |
|
|
|
Yes, we know. You're helping gimp Bitcoin so you can get your CP/Drug-coin off the ground. Hooray! |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
