A dynamic limit at least allows for the possibility of a balanced fee market.
A Fixed limit is sure to produce an unbalanced fee market.
I am onboard with segwit, but I REALLY like a dynamic limit.
I REALLY want to do both, who wouldn't?
I wish for less ways to wish for and more ways to work toward it
Dynamic Block size increase is the only things that sounds interesting about BU, in the end we will need sidechains to make it mainstream. Innovation will flourish, each sidechain with there own specialization. LN, Mimblewimble, Rootstock and TumbleBit are just the beginning. Sidechains will offer many useful features to institutions that want to build applications based on blockchain technology. Basically, sidechains should allow businesses to better implement peer-to-peer applications while cutting out the middleman. Certain startups will be able to utilize sidechains to disrupt many Wall Street processes. Segwit will deliver all oure needs and shoud be rolled out asap. LN is already on the testnet so adoption can move fast. Jihan from Bitmain (with to many mining power) + Roger Ver are the only idiots who's blocking this cool stuff. I mostly agree with you and so does Jihan and so does Ver and so does mostly everyone. the thing that is blocking us, is inability to come to a compromise and considering we are mostly in agreement, its kinda pathetic a compromise isn't being reached or even sought out! |
|
|
|
<970 in <2days  |
|
|
|
Money seems to be flowing into alt coins evenly, like an index. The fundamentals of the coins themselves might be besides the point.
It's traded like that for a LONG time and is nothing more than a single entity (digital currency group) trying to pump and dump and unload overpriced trash on idiots. This might just be the first time I've noticed. I haven't seen Wolf of Wall Street, either. its a pointless movie that lasts over 2hours but its pretty fucking good. |
|
|
|
bitcoin is undergoing an identity crisis, its pretty clear why poeple are looking to alts. I went looking for an altcoin pony to ride months ago. But i did somthing foolish ( or brilliant ) my altcoin pony is basically depended on bitcoin's ability to scale. as such its not performing as well as other alts these days...( to say the least  ) but i have faith. |
|
|
|
its hard to argue with Andreas Antonopoulos... because he's Andreas Antonopoulos! so i'll just agree with him, yes there is technical risk with forking ( some minor, some major, risks ) this is why it shouldn't be rushed and the code / process of the specific fork must be peer reviewed thoroughly and well tested etc.. a few months sounds OK if things go smoothly. but its not like segwit is not without risk. and yes 2MB will be enough, 2MB might actually be too much... if miners can clear the mempool TX fees might go down drastically miners might find themselves processing double the amount of TX and only getting rewarded half the fees they use to get with 1MB limit part of this reduced revenue might come for the 75% discount core has imposed on signature data With BU I believe enough % of hashing power will see the profit in keeping blocks small, in order to create a healthy fee market. with a 1.2MB blocksize, fee pressure might remain largely unchanged and provide 20% more miner revenue from TX fees. with a 2.0MB blocksize, fee pressure might drop drastically and half the total TX fee revenue, while doubling the workload. and then later when 2MB isn't enough ( once adoption has doubled ) the fee pressure will once again be ever increasing. A dynamic limit at least allows for the possibility of a balanced fee market. A Fixed limit is sure to produce an unbalanced fee market. I am onboard with segwit, but I REALLY like a dynamic limit. I REALLY want to do both, who wouldn't? I wish for less ways to wish for and more ways to work toward it |
|
|
|
Price will be ruined due to Core dragging their feet over a block size increase and generally fucking around prioritising technical perfection over actual usefulness and being totally unwilling to compromise. This is why alts are rapidly gaining on BTC.
If a fork causes Bitcoin to crash hard, then frankly, it deserves to, since this can happen at any point in the future.
Two coins would be the best solution at this time. All current hodlers have coins on both chains. One chain can scale on chain, be actually used as a payment system, the other chain can play at being digital gold and pray that lightning network is somehow better than on chain payments.
At least with a fork current hodlers will own both the gold and the payment network. No fork means an altcoin will eat Bitcoin's payment network market share.
A fork should make everybody happy. Except Vinny, who needs to cry some more.
The blocksize increase is segwit, tell the miners to signal the fucking thing already. After segwit is adopted, we can raise the blocksize in a safer way since segwit addresses certain problems. The problem is, even if we upgrade it to 2MB, they will soon demand more. BTW soon BU members will vote on a SegwitHF BUIP |
|
|
|
It'll be a total shitshow. The two warring factions will get coins on both chains, so they'll all start dumping on the chain they don't like while alts take over.
This. Bitcoin's dominance is already lower than it's ever been. With a hard fork, at least one alt is bound to surpass its mcap, which will be catastrophic.  what if <10% get left behind, and then later join the 1.2MB Bitcoin chain again? |
|
|
|
|
if price manages to stay above 1160 in the next few min's i'm gonna fire up my BU node and hope that helps
|
|
|
|
1200 before the end of the hour?
aaaaaaannnnnnnnnnnnddddd, the bear whale is back |
|
|
|
|
remarkable how strong these bounces are.
|
|
|
|
hopefully it will dip some more  i still need to buy myself back in since the ETF decline Better hurry up. You might already be half an hour too late. The beartrap is closing fast. That said, I'll still keep my cash handy and keep one eye on the price. It looks like whomever spent so much to trigger this little dip has accomplished what they set out to do, but I won't deny the possibility of another round. If it goes below $1100 I'll head out to buy, and I'll still buy if it bounces back to less than $1140. FWIW, I'm looking for 1050ish |
|
|
|
Did you buy back in Adam? This is your chance, I guess.
not yet. I think we can go lower still... Give BU another dozen of % and we will go below 1000 quite easily. right and then 0 once core exploits BU and crashes the network  |
|
|
|
Did you buy back in Adam? This is your chance, I guess.
not yet. I think we can go lower still... |
|
|
|
Only thing that I know for sure: I have invested heavily in bitcoin at $300 and I have been holding ever since. I have seen this kind of FUD before and selling was never the right decision. So I am not worried, but nonetheless very annoyed because of the bad actors in this community.
Realistically speaking is there any news about Bitcoin Unlimited? The ones pushing for this alternative protocol can't force everyone to switch over, right?
we can and we will its for your own good. LOL! try to relax, we will take it one step at a time, no one will be forced to do anything, you'll have a choice, and plenty of notice. i think your best choice will be to hold both. |
|
|
|
you misunderstand the built in incentives.
take the deal...
There are no incentives to prevent chain reorganizations. This is how BTU was meant to work. I looks like even you don't understand what you're preaching for. you know expect the incentive to NOT have everyone loss confidence in the network. a miner fighting for 50 Blocks ( potentially losing $$$$$$$ if it doesn't work in his favor) only to incress block size so he can include more TX fee, all the while knowing once the regor hits and the news comes out price will crash. yaaaaaaaaaa thats a remote possibility has core solved the 51% attack vector yet? |
|
|
|
Ill compromise..
if core code's EC instead of "effective block weight" i'll accept their segwit.
EC is highly unsafe and radical change to the security of Bitcoin. How many times does this have to be told to you? Even if you had a transaction with 50 confirmations, it could end up being dropped due to a chain reorganization.  you misunderstand the built in incentives. take the deal... |
|
|
|
Ill compromise.. if core code's EC instead of "effective block weight" i'll accept their segwit. |
|
|
|
|
if you find yourself having FOMO about some shitcoin train
i'm sorry there's no hope for you... just, go make yourself useful and run a BU node.
|
|
|
|
|
BU isn't going to produce "bigger blocks" tho..
BU is going to produce "slightly bigger blocks"
with BU, miners control block size collectively.
no way in hell will they collectively decided to create enough blockspace such that everyone can get in a block with a 1cent fee
thats nutty!
given today's TX demand, a blocksize of 1.2MB will maintain fee pressure AND generate 20% more TX fees pre block
this is what will drive blocksize growth! the growth in Fee Paying TX.
often poeple say TX demand is unbound, thats true, but 50cent Fee Paying TX is NOT unbound.
miners will look to maximize fee revenue by balancing the free market through minimal blocksize increases.
Core will be constantly pressuring miners to "keep blocks small Because Decentralization", this + the idea of maximizing fee revenue is going to prove IMPOSSIBLE for miner to ignore.
it will literally be IMPOSSIBLE ... because step 1) they maximizes fee revenue 2) miners profitability goes UP 3) because its more profitable , more miners come online 4) more miners == less profitability 5) miners are now completely DEPENDENT on the fee market being optimized, they will need to make sure to keep fee pruess strong, and that means no unnecessary blocksize incress.
1.2MB 1.3MB 1.35MB 1.39MB
these are the increases to be expected
they need to collectively decide on blocksize, so... all that is require is a small % of hashing power to understand the profit in keeping blocks small and we'll have this optimized fee market.
|
|
|
|
|
there we go a bear FINALLY someone came to his senses
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
