I would like to see a proper, hold onto your hats, wtf is this, holy M"£)£IKJSADFer! crash - it has been a while !
Patience, it will come... The market just needs some bad news as an excuse to start it. Like say, segwit is delayed and the 2MB blocks fork won't happen? Hmmmm..... so what exchange would you recommend for leverage? |
|
|
|
|
Why is it that core supporters end up having a complete tard-out?
Am I being manipulated to support alternative implementations through the fake unpleasantness of supposed Core supporters?
|
|
|
|
Fired up a new node with Bitcoin Classic.
Only 7 years and 4 weeks behind.
Do you really want this fork to find 75% of the hash, Fatty? I'm still torn. It's just a node, it's not hashing. I definitely am having trouble agreeing with the way Core is letting a small group of nutters set the tone and direction of their development. I've seen this before. Nobody thinks the rest will let the more shouty ones ruin the project, but none of the others have the nuts/labias to draw the line. They will keep compromizing and rationalizing until we have 0.5MB JeebusCoin. Maybe with HSBC or JPMorgan or similar running LN. It's an interesting model, but in order to maintain a fairly secure mining network the fees would have to be insane on the main blochchain. The problem then is: what will happen to the social capital? If the regular users are pushed off the main chain why would they run nodes to support what in essence is a distributed banking network? So financial actors would have to run the nodes. Is it decentralized then? What was the point of the block size limit then? Suddenly we are to imagine that the large financial actors want gimp-coin? It all kind of falls apart. I don't think Gmaxwell or Luke-Jr are necessarily aiming for this. They seem to have an estethical idea of how the network technically should work. That can be a good thing in many cases, but it can also lead them astray. |
|
|
|
|
Fired up a new node with Bitcoin Classic.
Only 7 years and 4 weeks behind.
|
|
|
|
The only sneaky shills around here are people like you trying to undermine bitcoin with your garbage alt coin promotion. But, try as you like (and you certainly do), you will fail utterly and fortunately.
You're fkn retarded. By your logic you're not even using Bitcoin, and none of us are. We're all using an altcoin that just happens to ALSO be named Bitcoin. What kind of mumbo-jumbo are you spewing? And so you resort to insults. Typical, from half-wits like you. It seems as though in your world a HF to increase the block size limit makes it an altcoin. If we take that as truth, then Bitcoin ceased to be "true" Bitcoin and became an altcoin when the block cap was originally put in place. Effectively using your argument to promote Core over Classic is arguing for one shitcoin over another, and we left Bitcoin behind ages ago. Wow. That was a bit of a stretch!  Was it? I think it was spot on. You're right. It was spot on toilet paper. /dʒ/ adjective & adverb BRITISH informalcompletely accurate or accurately. "your reviews are spot on" synonyms: accurate, correct, right, perfect, exact, unerring, so as to hit the nail on the head; Oh. OK. I thought you were referring to the fact it was a spot on toilet paper. No, that fact only existed in your imagination. Perhaps you need reading glasses. Dunno. Admit it Andre#, nothing beats a poop joke. Any attempt to save Bitcoin from being completely and utterly destroyed would be in vain after this. Andre# has a rather poor sense of humor. Maybe he's a little spot on too! He didn't laugh, so I'd say his sense of humor is... spotless? |
|
|
|
The only sneaky shills around here are people like you trying to undermine bitcoin with your garbage alt coin promotion. But, try as you like (and you certainly do), you will fail utterly and fortunately.
You're fkn retarded. By your logic you're not even using Bitcoin, and none of us are. We're all using an altcoin that just happens to ALSO be named Bitcoin. What kind of mumbo-jumbo are you spewing? And so you resort to insults. Typical, from half-wits like you. It seems as though in your world a HF to increase the block size limit makes it an altcoin. If we take that as truth, then Bitcoin ceased to be "true" Bitcoin and became an altcoin when the block cap was originally put in place. Effectively using your argument to promote Core over Classic is arguing for one shitcoin over another, and we left Bitcoin behind ages ago. Wow. That was a bit of a stretch! Was it? I think it was spot on. You're right. It was spot on toilet paper. /dʒ/ adjective & adverb BRITISH informalcompletely accurate or accurately. "your reviews are spot on" synonyms: accurate, correct, right, perfect, exact, unerring, so as to hit the nail on the head; Oh. OK. I thought you were referring to the fact it was a spot on toilet paper. No, that fact only existed in your imagination. Perhaps you need reading glasses. Dunno. Admit it Andre#, nothing beats a poop joke. Any attempt to save Bitcoin from being completely and utterly destroyed would be in vain after this. |
|
|
|
I went to a psychic today, based on what the cards said on Bitcoin here is a summary:
Core will increase the block size because they will lose control if they don't.
Block size increase will bump the price only slightly, maybe 20%
Halving pump already happened.
Next big run up won't happen until capitulation from the last pump.. I think we will see BTC-E flash crash in September to $209.
Then we rise up to above $500 to stay.
Next big wave isn't for another two years... we will get back over $1k eventually but all of you holders will likely be shaken out before we do.
Ha, that's what you think! I was actually seeing my astral projection service provider at the time and she psychically took over your psychic and made them say that so that you would sell all your coins to me for cheap. Beware of using outdated APIs, sucker!  |
|
|
|
The routing problem is further complicated because they don't only want to route transactions. They want to take a slice and collect a fee for doing so. This is a fee that will come directly out of the pockets of miners and will make Bitcoin less secure. Blockstream hobbles bitcoin, gives it a crutch and then tries to take credit that it can walk. If Core loses their position as reference client developers, they should try a career in government. Greg would make a pretty good banker. Why not give it a try?? Looks like he's making the same mistakes bankers made in the early 2000s as well. Introducing products he doesn't understand and/or doesn't understand the consequences of. |
|
|
|
So who is running classic?
Waiting for binaries/release |
|
|
|
Looks like BTC-E has lost faith as well. Oh well...  Brace yourself? |
|
|
|
Yup. No risk whatsoever. I think you should move to Russia and preach the gospel of Monero. How can you lose?  |
|
|
|
And what do you think of this? Does it look like economic activity or spam to you? If you follow the transactions, you see they are just spending fees to send very small amounts (0.0001 BTC) in circles. This won't decrease, no matter how much block space you throw at it. Larger blocks will only make room for more transactions of this kind. You could have gigabytes of block space, and there will always be another spammer spending a few bitcents on fees to "prove" it is not enough, claiming that "bitcoin is dead" and arguing for centralization, control and censorship. So the answer is: NO Please answer my question above. I think it shows very clearly how large the spam problem is by one example, showing just a small part of this spammers transactions on the blockchain. How would larger blocks solve this problem? All the transactions I looked at were 373 bytes. Assuming they're all 373 bytes they would amount to 4.4MB since early Nov 2015. This information tells me nothing. If that tells you nothing, I feel genuinely sorry for you. You are blind by choice, or someone gave you glasses with coloured glass. Some people are investing a lot of money in splitting the community, and you won't accept the evidence. This is a small drop in the ocean of spam. And it proves my point that spam fills the blocks. Most of the transactions are unconfirmed, and as soon as they are, the coins are sent on and spent on more spam. Actually the coins are usually just sent without waiting for a confirmation, creating large trees of unconfirmed transactions. Keep your eyes on the ball, my reply was in relation to this question : The blocks which are completely full usually contain a lot of dust transactions, i.e. outputs which cost more in fees tp spend than the value of the output, which won't get mined using a default configurations. Some miners happily prefer those transactions as long as they pay more in fees. This is abuse, imho. Do you have any data to back up your claim of the prevalence of dust spam in blocks now? I can only give examples. Your example doesn't prove that the blocks are full of spam. It just likely proves that there is spam on the network. We already agree about that: Of course there is dust spam, there's just nobody who's been able to show any convincing data on the matter. If someone could show me that the average block size without genuinely useless (that would have to be proven too) dust spam was along the lines of 150-200kB I might give it more weight.
You know very well that task is impossible to prove. And that is a real problem. But proper estimates would help. There are "mixing services" as well generating a ton of transactions. CT and payment channels will help get rid of those, I hope. Segwit makes it all much easier. I've read that as well somewhere. And I read a lot of people who disagreed with him. To be fair, what they all had in common was that they were just pulling numbers out of their exhaust ports. Segwit increases the capacity and make secure 0-conf off-chain transactions very easy to do. Spamming the blockchain to make normal transactions unreliable, increase centralization, promote censorship and split the community would no longer work.
Cool! Throw it in with a 2MB hard fork. Personally I guess I would prefer it with BIP101, but that doesn't seem very politically realistic. A hard fork won't solve any real world problems. Just create more, by splitting the community in a brutal way. Many large and rich businesses, e.g. R3, want to destroy Bitcoin and create a new blockchain where they are in control, and they may have found the cheapest way to do it. Now they are in a hurry, since they know for a fact that segwit and the possibilities enabled by segwit will make a 51% attack their only option, and their investments until now will be lost. Their best hope is control over a hard fork by incompetent people, and a community hostile to progress. Ok, now I get it.  |
|
|
|
Looks like someone flashed a Superdump signal on finex. HOLD ON TO YOUR NUTZ/LABIAZ!!! |
|
|
|
And what do you think of this? Does it look like economic activity or spam to you? If you follow the transactions, you see they are just spending fees to send very small amounts (0.0001 BTC) in circles. This won't decrease, no matter how much block space you throw at it. Larger blocks will only make room for more transactions of this kind. You could have gigabytes of block space, and there will always be another spammer spending a few bitcents on fees to "prove" it is not enough, claiming that "bitcoin is dead" and arguing for centralization, control and censorship. So the answer is: NO Please answer my question above. I think it shows very clearly how large the spam problem is by one example, showing just a small part of this spammers transactions on the blockchain. How would larger blocks solve this problem? All the transactions I looked at were 373 bytes. Assuming they're all 373 bytes they would amount to 4.4MB since early Nov 2015. This information tells me nothing. Of course there is dust spam, there's just nobody who's been able to show any convincing data on the matter. If someone could show me that the average block size without genuinely useless (that would have to be proven too) dust spam was along the lines of 150-200kB I might give it more weight.
You know very well that task is impossible to prove. And that is a real problem. But proper estimates would help. Segwit increases the capacity and make secure 0-conf off-chain transactions very easy to do. Spamming the blockchain to make normal transactions unreliable, increase centralization, promote censorship and split the community would no longer work.
Cool! Throw it in with a 2MB hard fork. Personally I guess I would prefer it with BIP101, but that doesn't seem very politically realistic. |
|
|
|
Are we going to have an equally fruitful debate about the word "full" as we had about "released"? Scroll around and look at the recent blocks: https://tradeblock.com/bitcoin/https://blockchain.info/There's not a lot of room for growth. By the way, nice metaphor for adoption: "Swarm of grasshoppers and birds eating everyting they get."Adoption? It that what you call transaction spam? Do you think 2 MB blocks will reduce the spam in any way? The blocks will be just as full. I just had a look. Of the last 8 blocks, only one is close to full. 1.8 kB left in that one, which should allow for about 9 more non-segwit transactions. The rest have plenty room. That is just silly-talk. Last I checked all the blocks were 900kB+. Ideally it should be no more than 10-20% full in order for the network to be ready to absorb more users. Tell that to the spammers. There are plenty enough transactions coming to fill 20 MB blocks today, if you want all the junk to litter your disk and network, and get most full nodes off the network. 2 MB blocks will be just as full as 1 MB blocks. The only limiting factor right now is the fact that most miners demand a minimum amount of fee per KB to avoid building too large blocks, or block some of the spam, because larger blocks take longer to spread. My mempool has hundreds of megabytes of spam in it. The blocks which are completely full usually contain a lot of dust transactions, i.e. outputs which cost more in fees tp spend than the value of the output, which won't get mined using a default configurations. Some miners happily prefer those transactions as long as they pay more in fees. This is abuse, imho. Do you have any data to back up your claim of the prevalence of dust spam in blocks now? I can only give examples. Here is one from the latest block from F2Pool, one of the pools including dust as long as it pays enough fees. 0.0000082 BTC sent, paying a fee of 0.0001 BTC. And what do you think of this? Does it look like economic activity or spam to you? If you follow the transactions, you see they are just spending fees to send very small amounts (0.0001 BTC) in circles. This won't decrease, no matter how much block space you throw at it. Larger blocks will only make room for more transactions of this kind. You could have gigabytes of block space, and there will always be another spammer spending a few bitcents on fees to "prove" it is not enough, claiming that "bitcoin is dead" and arguing for centralization, control and censorship. So the answer is: NO Of course there is dust spam, there's just nobody who's been able to show any convincing data on the matter. If someone could show me that the average block size without genuinely useless (that would have to be proven too) dust spam was along the lines of 150-200kB I might give it more weight. |
|
|
|
Ideally it should be no more than 10-20% full in order for the network to be ready to absorb more users. How come Fatty? To handle spikes in trade when they appear. To handle a grass root adoption wave, or to show any industry interested that Bitcoin can and will meet their needs, it should probably be more. I guess you could claim that it would be enough to know that 20x tx/s or similar is theoretically possible to satisfy this last bit, but it turns out that getting people to implement the necessary capacity increases is not as straight forward as it should be. |
|
|
|
WTF? But why? Finally there is RBF and all the other improvements in 0.12, which are important to users, merchants and exchanges, and Oliver Janssen decides to not support it? Again: WTF is Classic about? I thought is was a fork to 2 MB block size, not a retardation.
They are clearly just spooking. Noone in their right mind will run it. When 90% of nodes use RBF, and 0.12 doesn't even inform about RBF transactions, it would be outright dangerous to use. I can send a 0-fee transaction to a "Classic" user, insist on getting my money now, and then RBF it. Even easier than it is now. With RBF support, I can instead ask the sender to replace it by a non-RBF transaction paying a fee.
I intend to use RBF a lot myself. I exchange bitcoins all the time, and as long as I have an unconfirmed transaction in the queue, I can just replace it and add outputs as I sell more. Saving transactions on the blockchain, ensuring faster confirmations for my customers, and not having to use unconfirmed inputs.
And the speed improvements important for IBD? Why don't they want them? Or the data limits, etc? All of those must be essential for a large block fork.
Because Core hasn't paid enough attention to solving the block size problem. We shouldn't be where we are now. Or because it's all a big evil conspiracy. Take your pick. Blaming Core doesn't make sense. They already implemented those features in 0.12! I personally think the problem is incompetence. The forks lack competent programmers, and don't know how to merge the fork they made with current Bitcoin. They made something they think may work on top of some old version, and don't dare to touch it. The block size is currently not a problem, and won't be for a while yet. Hard forks will be, especially if the forks keep pretending to be Bitcoin. I'd advice you to stop deleting parts of the conversation if you can't remember what I wrote. I hope they are going to upgrade to 0.12 before they release. 0.12 has lots of improvements, e.g. much faster IBD, data usage limiting, the long awaited RBF feature, etc. It will be hard to convince people to downgrade. The first version will be 0.11.2 with a 2MB block size. It may very well be the final version if Core decides to wise up. Doesn't seem to be a serious attempt then. Are the Toomins too incompetent to merge the improvements from 0.12? The choice of 0.11.2 was a conscious decision in order to make it perfectly clear what this release of Classic is about. They wanted everything else than the 2MB block size limit increase to be uncontroversial. This is best achieved with 0.11.2. Not everyone are as enthusiastic about RBF as you are. Aqually it should be doable by a lot less than 25%, since you can generate every block a 10 minute to validate block, and it will be very hard for the rest to catch up. If the fork happens, Bitcoin will already be destroyed, so the investment is already lost. The only cost is power. So if Bitcoin is already destroyed someone will stay behind to savage the corpse? I am speechless... Of course. Can you think of a better use for the equipment? Door stops. Buttplugs. Who gives a hoo-haa at that point? Of course it does. I agree that there needs to be more focus on efficiency, but my view (and that of quite a few others as well) is that we can't let the cow starve while the grass is growing. And this seems to be the main point of contention.
Letting the cow die in a civil war isn't much better. ... the civil war which was started in order to save the cow from starving? The cow isn't starving. The blocks aren't full, except during spam attacks which would have filled blocks of any size. Not even then, since most miners don't produce full blocks under any circumstance. Normally, e.g. now, it is far between full blocks. Some miners are quite good at filtering the spam, and confirm even 0-fee transactions in the first block they make even during the worst spam storms. Doubling the size of the what field won't help a bit, when you don't do sh*t about the real problem. Swarm of grasshoppers and birds eating everyting they get. Are we going to have an equally fruitful debate about the word "full" as we had about "released"? Scroll around and look at the recent blocks: https://tradeblock.com/bitcoin/https://blockchain.info/There's not a lot of room for growth. By the way, nice metaphor for adoption: "Swarm of grasshoppers and birds eating everyting they get."Adoption? It that what you call transaction spam? Do you think 2 MB blocks will reduce the spam in any way? The blocks will be just as full. I just had a look. Of the last 8 blocks, only one is close to full. 1.8 kB left in that one, which should allow for about 9 more non-segwit transactions. The rest have plenty room. That is just silly-talk. Last I checked all the blocks were 900kB+. Ideally it should be no more than 10-20% full in order for the network to be ready to absorb more users. The blocks which are completely full usually contain a lot of dust transactions, i.e. outputs which cost more in fees tp spend than the value of the output, which won't get mined using a default configurations. Some miners happily prefer those transactions as long as they pay more in fees. This is abuse, imho. Do you have any data to back up your claim of the prevalence of dust spam in blocks now? Here is a nice infographic which explains why segwit is a much better idea than some panic fork blocksize war. In case you don't remember: I hope Core replies with a 2MB/Segwit hard fork. It seems like a clever piece of technology. But I wasn't talking about Segwit. Segwit will only get us so far.
|
|
|
|
I hope they are going to upgrade to 0.12 before they release. 0.12 has lots of improvements, e.g. much faster IBD, data usage limiting, the long awaited RBF feature, etc. It will be hard to convince people to downgrade. The first version will be 0.11.2 with a 2MB block size. It may very well be the final version if Core decides to wise up. Doesn't seem to be a serious attempt then. Are the Toomins too incompetent to merge the improvements from 0.12? The choice of 0.11.2 was a conscious decision in order to make it perfectly clear what this release of Classic is about. WTF? But why? Finally there is RBF and all the other improvements in 0.12, which are important to users, merchants and exchanges, and Oliver Janssen decides to not support it? Again: WTF is Classic about? I thought is was a fork to 2 MB block size, not a retardation. They are clearly just spooking. Noone in their right mind will run it. When 90% of nodes use RBF, and 0.12 doesn't even inform about RBF transactions, it would be outright dangerous to use. I can send a 0-fee transaction to a "Classic" user, insist on getting my money now, and then RBF it. Even easier than it is now. With RBF support, I can instead ask the sender to replace it by a non-RBF transaction paying a fee. I intend to use RBF a lot myself. I exchange bitcoins all the time, and as long as I have an unconfirmed transaction in the queue, I can just replace it and add outputs as I sell more. Saving transactions on the blockchain, ensuring faster confirmations for my customers, and not having to use unconfirmed inputs. And the speed improvements important for IBD? Why don't they want them? Or the data limits, etc? All of those must be essential for a large block fork. Because Core hasn't paid enough attention to solving the block size problem. We shouldn't be where we are now. Or because it's all a big evil conspiracy. Take your pick. I wonder how long it takes until a miner do a 51% attack on "Classic" using only 25% of the hashrate (after already scaling off a lot of the competition due to the fork) using the 10 minute block trick. With 2 MB blocks, you can design a transaction which takes 10 minutes to validate. In the mean time the malicious miner has a 10 minute head start on the next block. Victory! "Classic" hasn't been given much thought. In the mean time Bitcoin solves the O(n²) problem in segwit, allowing for large transactions which don't take forever to validate. (XT had a "solution" to this problem, by limiting transactions to 100 kB, a limit which would require another hard fork to remove in the future. Where the other developers look for elegant, efficient and flexible solutions, Gavin prefers using a mallet. (In his own words.)) With regards to the attack: you're working with probabilities, so at best you'll have a more efficient way of carrying out a 51% attack with roughly 51% of the hashing power. But let's forget that and assume this is a way of confidently launching a 51% attack with 25% of the hashing power. That hashing power still costs 200 million USD. There are much cheaper ways to destroy Bitcoin. Aqually it should be doable by a lot less than 25%, since you can generate every block a 10 minute to validate block, and it will be very hard for the rest to catch up. If the fork happens, Bitcoin will already be destroyed, so the investment is already lost. The only cost is power. So if Bitcoin is already destroyed someone will stay behind to savage the corpse? I am speechless... Segwit has the potential to get us much further, and scale dynamically. Just increasing the blocksize doesn't scale at all.
Of course it does. I agree that there needs to be more focus on efficiency, but my view (and that of quite a few others as well) is that we can't let the cow starve while the grass is growing. And this seems to be the main point of contention. Letting the cow die in a civil war isn't much better. ... the civil war which was started in order to save the cow from starving? The cow isn't starving. The blocks aren't full, except during spam attacks which would have filled blocks of any size. Not even then, since most miners don't produce full blocks under any circumstance. Normally, e.g. now, it is far between full blocks. Some miners are quite good at filtering the spam, and confirm even 0-fee transactions in the first block they make even during the worst spam storms. Doubling the size of the what field won't help a bit, when you don't do sh*t about the real problem. Swarm of grasshoppers and birds eating everyting they get. Are we going to have an equally fruitful debate about the word "full" as we had about "released"? Scroll around and look at the recent blocks: https://tradeblock.com/bitcoin/https://blockchain.info/There's not a lot of room for growth. By the way, nice metaphor for adoption: "Swarm of grasshoppers and birds eating everyting they get." |
|
|
|
As a non American I don't really care about Obama policy But Obama cares about you so very much. We are all his children. Do you have founding father pissed off and left me alone issues? Satoshi is watching and we are his wayward children. No need to adopt a fairy tale father figure. Are you telling me Obama isn't real? As a non American I don't really care about Obama policy But Obama cares about you so very much. We are all his children. Do you have founding father pissed off and left me alone issues? Satoshi is watching and we are his wayward children. No need to adopt a fairy tale father figure. I don't think we have that kind of choice. Well, maybe some countries do but here in the UK it's pretty much written into our unwritten constitution that the US President is the father we wished we had. Unlike the mother we actually have, who is alright in a regal sort of way, but you probably wouldn't vote for her unless the only other option was that creepy uncle all the kids avoid at family parties. Like her son? google:
site:bitcointalk.org aztecminer marshall´s pump About 63.000.000 results (0,44 seconds)
Baaaaahaaaahaaaaa!!!!! |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
