ETH is a worthless shitcoin.
bitcoin is Technically superior, more network effect, more limited in supply, more decentralized. POS HA What a JOke! |
|
|
|
edit: fixed the typos.. dyslexia's a bitch
|
|
|
|
i'm still right.  if we segwit then we will blocksize incress and HARD targeting 4MB effective block space. wait that came out all wrong. then next block increase is critical!! this is typically a Coreish pattern, it's likely we will not segwit and break into a fork to form a new higher low fee targeting 4cents. if 4cents hodls, we will segwit tomorrow. you see i predicted this little drop, now we will see 400 one more time very some!  |
|
|
|
I sincerely believe they have the overall good of Bitcoin *and* the users of it foremost in their minds.
I believe the good in poeple, gets ripped away when there's less than 50$ on the table. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin Core contributors (Ordered by number of commits);
Wladimir J. van der Laan (3398)
Gavin Andresen (1100)
Pieter Wuille (966)
Cory Fields (332)
TheBlueMatt (288)
jonasschnelli (246)
Luke-Jr (239)
Gregory Maxwell (195)
MarcoFalke (128)
fanquake (118)
jtimon (112)
...
...
sorry I ran out of gas/time. So, pretty clearly "most" don't appear on the link from Blockstream.
notice how Gavin Andresen appears in your list but is no longer allowed to commit anything to Blockstream i mean bitcoinCore |
|
|
|
Didn't Adam used to be smart?
He used to be right. That's different. lol! |
|
|
|
sometimes i stream a movie off these www.free-tv-project.we.will.pop.up.1.million.adds.com websites. TONES of pop-ups also one of my kids likes to play flash games, but often these flash games sites have pop-up and big flash ads that slow down the computer and confuse her. if i could pay a small fee and not have any ads what so ever i'd do it... |
|
|
|
Who pays the Core Dev Team? Are they doing all their work for Bitcoin for free? My sincerest heartfelt praise and admiration go out to Core Dev Team members! They are giving us something I couldn't do myself. That said, I do think there's room for improvement on the handling of perceptions front. I sincerely believe they have the overall good of Bitcoin *and* the users of it foremost in their minds.
They're a group of volunteers. Some are employed by MIT (Wladimir IIRC), and some are employed by Blockstream (Maxwell, Wuille) and such. However, most of them are just volunteers from what I know. They are mostly Blockstream members. They are on payroll of bankers from VC's. Before somebody call me a liar. You can check out https://www.blockstream.com/team/ and then compare with https://bitcoin.org/en/development#bitcoin-core-contributors . I will stop coming into a conversation without proof. I hope that's good enough. It will never have an 2MB hardfork they will just give us breadcrumbs to shut up a bit while they are building solutions so people will go in wave to their solutions rather then stay on main chain. Transforming it in a settlement layer and absolute the P2P payment system and take it off-chain to their solution. That's the last thing I had to say. No more involving in this subject, it drains me out of energy, it drains me out of patience. All I can do is keep my Bitcoin Classic nodes up and hope slowly other will join as more will be aware of the breadcrumbs were given. Dramatizing the whole increase of block size just because it's dangerous without any real and statistical answer while they forked when testing SegWit it says a lot. Also they are a lot of Bitcoin Core supporters here while the whole board bitcointalk is 100% Bitcoin Core by just not offering people alternative solutions and advertising every update of Bitcoin Core while not offering people alternatives with proper explanation prooves again the control of mass and keeping it them blind against recent Bitcoin discussion. It absolute the whole idea of community of an free & open source project made by people for people. So Bitcoin Classic must somehow pay for advertising and inform people about the news and their right to choose, because other channels are trying to hide as much as possible the right to choose. Thanks, I wish both sides good luck and may the best chain win. +1 @David Rabahy, this is all true, read it and understand why we are out of patience. |
|
|
|
These limitations are very bad. Wasn't Bitcoin supposed to be censorship free? Who gets to decide what kind of transactions we are going to limit?
this is a prime example of ivory tower thinking getting in the way of real solutions that matter to real poeple. As an example, the sigops limitation that Gavin implemented in Classic is not a solution of any kind. For example, if we had confidential transactions today they would not work due to this. There are so many potential use cases that it is nearly impossible for us to consider everything.
this is a prime example of bad project management, we can't achieve any kind of consensus without first agreeing to what the main goals of the project is. of course Gavin is doing things differently in classic his primary goal is to scale the blockchain as much as possible. this is NOT the main goal of Core, which is fine, there second layer solution is fine, but it's simply not what the majority want... |
|
|
|
why can't the other miners simply orphen these blocks?
Exactly how do you plan on "simply" detecting these blocks and why would somebody orphan them? How do you classify this as an attack; was the TX that F2Pool did to clear the spam also an attack? somthing like if TX has >10,000 inputs it's no good? why not!? I wouldn't mind if F2Pool's tiny blocks were orphaned by other miners. maybe he'll stop making these tiny blocks if they do punish him for it? oh wait i read that wrong.... again, WHY NOT!? the TX in question WAS an attack, why include in the blockchain? if you can't be sure if its spam or not ( <1$ TX with 1cent fee ) fine included in the block, but if you are sure it is spam ( >10K inputs ) why include it? That's interesting adamstgBit. *Is* it *always* the case that >10K inputs is indeed spam? *Is* there *ever* a case where it is not? Can the same movements be accomplished by splitting it up into multiple transactions to avoid triggering the spam rejection? someone can probably come up with some highly speculative scenario where such a transaction could potently be useful is that excuse a good reason to not protect the network against such an attack? |
|
|
|
I feel the core dev team is not willing to make the appropriate trade offs.
I do believe we could of had the 2MB limit inplace months ago and all this pain/anxiety avoided.
but the Core dev team doesn't seem very concerned with end users pain/anxiety, as much as they are with theoretically more elegant scaling.
I feel they are programmers not qualified to manage and direct of the project, and they are making bad decision, maybe the decision they make are technically more elegant, but they are currently create a more elegant user experience. but they are convinced that the users dont matter because its Bitcoin birth right to replace central banking.
Bitcoin is up and running well (assuming one uses reasonable fees ~5¢/transaction) despite an onslaught of ill-intention persons. Shame on all of us for not adjusting our marketing messages earlier to set expectations better. Find me another system that has withstood as much and moves millions of dollars a day. Who pays the Core Dev Team? Are they doing all their work for Bitcoin for free? My sincerest heartfelt praise and admiration go out to Core Dev Team members! They are giving us something I couldn't do myself. That said, I do think there's room for improvement on the handling of perceptions front. I sincerely believe they have the overall good of Bitcoin *and* the users of it foremost in their minds. Lauda has done a yeoman's job representing the positions; thank goodness someone has the patience. give it a few more days of debate, you'll see your optimism and praise will turn to anger and disgust. LOL  your a really nice guy, quite refreshing! LEAVE THIS PLACE IMMEDIATELY, this is for your own good. |
|
|
|
As hard as it might be to see, I really believe the crisis in front of us is one of perception as opposed to anything technical. Perceptions are manageable while the real work of sorting through the technical issues is taken out of the limelight.
The network is working and it's still relatively cheap (5cents pre TX) But we have threads that are titled " why is my TX not confirming ?? " or somthing to that effect Newbies are using bitcoin for the first time and are having a hard time, with their BTC tie up seemly never to confrim, and they conclude that bitcoin is not all that it's cracked up to be.... is this a problem? I remember when i was a newbie, i would check over and over waiting for the first 6 confirmations, everything went smoothly, but I didnt fully trust that it would go smoothly, i was afraid my money would get lost or somthing. slowly my confidence in the system grew as i used it more and understood it more. not sure i would have be able to build any confidence had i started using bitcoin today.... adamstgBit, you've hit it right on the head. We must do everything we can to help folks adopt Bitcoin without pain/anxiety. Our marketing messages need to set expectations appropriately; gone are the days of leading with the misleading "no fees". It's ok to indicate lower fees than the competition, e.g. wire transfers, VISA, *if* it is indeed true but don't touch the topic if it is not -- if 5¢/transaction is the going fee then transactions less than say $5, i.e. 1%, make less sense. Instead lead with our indisputable strengths, e.g. ~1 hour (6 blocks) to guarantee transfers of even large amounts anywhere in the world. It is just unbelievable that there are wallets out there that don't set an appropriate fee automatically and by default such that transactions get through quickly despite the dynamic environment. Once a new user grows accustom then they could dig in and find the overrides to try transactions with low/zero fees and see the natural consequences of long delays. I feel the core dev team is not willing to make the appropriate trade offs. I do believe we could of had the 2MB limit inplace months ago and all this pain/anxiety avoided. but the Core dev team doesn't seem very concerned with end users pain/anxiety, as much as they are with theoretically more elegant scaling. I feel they are programmers not qualified to manage and direct the project, and they are making bad decision, maybe the decision they make are technically more elegant, but they do not create a more elegant user experience. but they are convinced that the users dont matter because its Bitcoin's birth right to replace central banking. |
|
|
|
why can't the other miners simply orphen these blocks?
Exactly how do you plan on "simply" detecting these blocks and why would somebody orphan them? How do you classify this as an attack; was the TX that F2Pool did to clear the spam also an attack? somthing like if TX has >10,000 inputs it's no good? why not!? I wouldn't mind if F2Pool's tiny blocks were orphaned by other miners. maybe he'll stop making these tiny blocks if they do punish him for it? oh wait i read that wrong.... again, WHY NOT!? the TX in question WAS an attack, why include in the blockchain? if you can't be sure if its spam or not ( <1$ TX with 1cent fee ) fine included in the block, but if you are sure it is spam ( >10K inputs ) why include it? |
|
|
|
the mem pool is 336MB big but the block isn't full, because bitcoin |
|
|
|
up next the B2B adoption wave is incoming ... an average 10-25x increase in transaction size, these will be SME looking to do cheap international transfers ... few years after that will be the medium large corps, small financial firm, insurance, banks. http://cointelegraph.com/news/b2b-bitcoin-payments-on-the-risebitcoin is like a fungus growing into all the gaps, cracks and niches that banking doesn't work well for ... only when it is everywhere and impossible to remove will it become obvious that it has taken over, like a creeping fungus can't bitcoin be the Mr.Weed bottle that removes the fungus in the banks cracks? |
|
|
|
If Bitcoin has to be scaled via hard forks pushed by a small group, or if a small group (i.e. 2 miners) can block scaling by blocking a size change, then Bitcoin has to fall under control of a very few number of players to succeed. This contradicts your previous stance.
Of course any small group of people do not represent the consensus, that's why we need a large scale vote and count everyone's opinion through miners vote with their hash power, and service providers asking their customers (you can not fake hash power, and you can not fake long term users on platforms) Currently for those who voted with their hash power, classic has the majority hash power, and even user number is several times more than core users. And for those who don't vote (currently over 90% of mining hash power has not voted yet) it means they don't care, we can assume that they want bitcoin to run on its historical trajectory (non-full blocks and low fee), so they can also be assumed to support classic. Or, we can assume that they don't command enough knowledge to do the vote, so their vote can not be counted. But since in bitcoin's world no one is responsible for your financial loss, I think everyone who is enough serious about his investment should participate in the vote  wow can you post the source of this graph please. |
|
|
|
but the block would get orphaned?
No, why would they? because the 1 TX the miner included, is obviously an attack to try and get the other miners to run in circles validating for minutes while he starts on the new block? let's ignore the fact that miners have a strong incentive to keep the network running smoothly... and think about this WILD speculation that with 2MB blocks a miners can block all mining on the network by creating extremely complex transaction that take a long time to validate. why can't the other miners simply orphen these blocks? |
|
|
|
As hard as it might be to see, I really believe the crisis in front of us is one of perception as opposed to anything technical. Perceptions are manageable while the real work of sorting through the technical issues is taken out of the limelight.
The network is working and it's still relatively cheap (5cents pre TX) But we have threads that are titled " why is my TX not confirming ?? " or somthing to that effect Newbies are using bitcoin for the first time and are having a hard time, with their BTC tie up seemly never to confrim, and they conclude that bitcoin is not all that it's cracked up to be.... is this a problem? I remember when i was a newbie, i would check over and over waiting for the first 6 confirmations, everything went smoothly, but I didnt fully trust that it would go smoothly, i was afraid my money would get lost or somthing. slowly my confidence in the system grew as i used it more and understood it more. not sure i would have be able to build any confidence had i started using bitcoin today.... |
|
|
|
but miners can still generate these transactions.
but the block would get orphaned? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
