This is under the assumption that the block size wouldn't grow when needed, blocks aren't full without outside attacks so there's no evidence that when the time comes we won't increase the block size to a common sense size.
Well, other than the evidence that blocks were kept small the last time they became persistently full. Which, in itself, is pretty strong evidence. Once the need resurfaces (and it most certainly will), how long do you think it will take to implement the necessary change? That was a short spam attack period, you know damn well that was artificial and everyone knew it. Irony of the recent brouhaha over the definition of 'artificial' is duly noted. Natural ... artificial ... what does it matter? Effect is the same. It's a vulnerability. An open attack vector if artificial. A suicide if natural. |
|
|
|
oh. yay. derivatives. More tools for the pinstriped bandit class. |
|
|
|
This is under the assumption that the block size wouldn't grow when needed, blocks aren't full without outside attacks so there's no evidence that when the time comes we won't increase the block size to a common sense size.
Well, other than the evidence that blocks were kept small the last time they became persistently full. Which, in itself, is pretty strong evidence. Once the need resurfaces (and it most certainly will), how long do you think it will take to implement the necessary change? If it was urgent it could probably be done in 48 hours. But it won’t be urgent. It ain't just a river in Egypt. I would mostly agree with the bear here. The last full block crisis resulted in inaction, to force people onto segwit. Yes, but was the attrition worth it? Especially given the fact that it was all so unnecessary. I presume the next full block crisis will result in inaction, to force people onto lightning.
Yes, but will the attrition be worth it? Sanity says no. |
|
|
|
And “resurfaces” is the wrong term as it implies that the need has previously surfaced, which it has not. The need may never surface.
You've already banished it from your revisionist history? There were some high fees in 2017. There was no need for a block size increase as demonstrated by the failure of BCH. If it was “necessary”, BCH would have won. The result was a BTC dominance drop from an overwhelming ~85% to abut half. Are you prepared for a drop to about a quarter next time the stream is blocked? You're whistling past your own graveyard. |
|
|
|
That's what it is for now even though Roger Ver is trying to say that Bitcoin Cash should be successful independently of Bitcoin, but that is not true.
Because ... reasons? Just take your word for it? I just said that as of now Bitcoin Cash will depend on Bitcoin. If BTC price goes up BCH price will also go up and vice versa. You made an assertion, devoid of any evidence. Why do you believe that what you said is true? |
|
|
|
This is under the assumption that the block size wouldn't grow when needed, blocks aren't full without outside attacks so there's no evidence that when the time comes we won't increase the block size to a common sense size.
Well, other than the evidence that blocks were kept small the last time they became persistently full. Which, in itself, is pretty strong evidence. Once the need resurfaces (and it most certainly will), how long do you think it will take to implement the necessary change? If it was urgent it could probably be done in 48 hours. But it won’t be urgent. It ain't just a river in Egypt. And “resurfaces” is the wrong term as it implies that the need has previously surfaced, which it has not. The need may never surface.
You've already banished it from your revisionist history? |
|
|
|
Now I have to buy a fucking jag, at least theyre cool For the IOTA? smh |
|
|
|
This is under the assumption that the block size wouldn't grow when needed, blocks aren't full without outside attacks so there's no evidence that when the time comes we won't increase the block size to a common sense size.
Well, other than the evidence that blocks were kept small the last time they became persistently full. Which, in itself, is pretty strong evidence. Once the need resurfaces (and it most certainly will), how long do you think it will take to implement the necessary change? |
|
|
|
OK, perhaps on the topic of Lightning's limitations, you're not prepared to listen to myself, Rizun nor reason. Perhaps you might be open to the views of one of Lightning's co-creators. “In the future, if you have this one-megabyte restricted blocksize and the Lightning Network, it is still the rich people and companies that can use lightning but the average user probably can’t.” — Tadge Dryja https://www.whatbitcoindid.com/podcast/tadge-dryja-on-the-limitations-of-the-lightning-networkInterview location: Skype Interview date: Thursday 25th April, 2019 University: MIT Digital Currency Initiative Role: Research Scientist The simple promise of the Lightning Network is that it solves the scaling issues inherent with one-megabyte blocks in Bitcoin, offering users near instant and low-cost payments. Now the Lightning Network is in beta, actively being used and stress tested, questions are being asked about its limitations. Proponents for on-chain scaling have been harsh critics of Lightning, questioning everything from the time it has taken to develop to whether it does solve high fees. Proponents of Lightning often defend it, claiming it is early, and many exciting things are being developed to address these early issues. What is clear is that the Lightning Network has much to prove, and there are risks it will not solve all the issues with scaling and potentially becomes a tool for the Bitcoin rich. Tadge Dryja co-authored the Lightning Network whitepaper with Joseph Poon and worked on the initial implementation. In this interview, we discuss the limitations of the Lightning, why Bitcoin might not be for everyone, alternative scaling ideas, the fee network and inflation. |
|
|
|
Major suckage. "I may have lost the seed" - WTaF? Adding insult to injury. Maybe he means as in having temporarily unable to access the seed as if it was stored on a seastead or something? Anyway I think Elwar was more of a paperwallet guy. The ledger he may be using it just for convenience. Even if it sounds as a bit of inconvenience right now if he can't access it. Let us all hope... |
|
|
|
Major suckage. "I may have lost the seed" - WTaF? Adding insult to injury. |
|
|
|
blackle.com used to be a good solution. Looks, however, that they have not implemented https tho. Blackle uses Google Custom Search. Right. They take your request, forward it to google as if it was theirs, collates google's results, and forwards those back to you. It is a way of using The Google without The Google knowing about you. Of course, blackle may be saving your data, for later use of their own design. Who ya gonna call? |
|
|
|
blackle.com used to be a good solution. Looks, however, that they have not implemented https tho. |
|
|
|
There's so much wrong with this you should be embarrassed and ashamed Indeed. Circa 2009 January 03, there was no protocol determined 1MB block limit. The diagram really needs to be corrected. |
|
|
|
That's a pretty odd use of the term 'per capita'. Which, of course, is defined as 'per each person'. How can we have 3.54 Americans killed for every American that visits Pakistan? Per x100,000 capita.Per x100,000 capita. It never ceases to amaze me how your troll senses are so keened on picking up any minute issue with the BTC, yet would fail to notice something obvious like SV scam even if CSW came in riding in on a tank which is positioned on the aircraft carrier with the word SCAM written on a side Obviously. But that is not what is says now, is it? That's not what i said either now is it? Just impressed by your Sherlock Holmes skills when you really want it. Take the damn compliment Haha. Compliment. Riiiiiight. Funny how you managed to drag SV and CSW into a branch of the thread that has nothing whatsoever to do with them. Twice. |
|
|
|
That's a pretty odd use of the term 'per capita'. Which, of course, is defined as 'per each person'. How can we have 3.54 Americans killed for every American that visits Pakistan? Per x100,000 capita. Obviously. But that is not what is says now, is it? |
|
|
|
istr dialing the webpage directly lol
dial up multi-line BBSing was the the thing in my day. i remember using telnet and lynx back when you could still get pure text web pages. Still use tenet and lynx. Sometimes, they are just the right tool for the job at hand. Thank goodness for DNS. www.xxx.yyy.zzz:80 is tedious. |
|
|
|
That's a pretty odd use of the term 'per capita'. Which, of course, is defined as 'per each person'. How can we have 3.54 Americans killed for every American that visits Pakistan? |
|
|
|
It feels bumpy right now, but it's kind of a scalper's paradise (while it lasts).
XD |
|
|
|
|
Incidentally, on today's What Bitcoin Did podcast, host Dr Perter McCormack revealed that he did not know that Lightning does not use trustless payments when these txs are of a value below that of the cost of posting a channel closing tx.
Yes, this is the same issue BitUsher raised above.
It is not so much that LN has limitations. It is that any attempt to raise a discussion on these limitations is immediately shouted down. Mostly by people completely ignorant that these issues even exist.
You might want to ask yourself how confident you are in your knowledge that the technical design of LN is bulletproof. I'm not calling on you to post the results of this self-examination. Just be honest with yourself.
I don't think it too much to ask.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
