Stop defending him, he does not deserve it.
"Strong minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, weak minds discuss people." |
|
|
|
Ok, new proposal on block size. 1mb max limit for transactions with no or micro-fee attached. No block size limit for transactions with a fee attached that is at least 90% of the average fee over the last 1440 blocks. Now go make it happen and stop dumping.
ACK, we'll call it "Rolling Bitcoin". |
|
|
|
|
Ow, ow, ow! It hurts in my digital wallet!
|
|
|
|
+ the fact that there is no expansion space is a bullshit argument. Blocks are at ~600kb (including dust and spam), not 1mb. It has +50% capacity to reach 900kb - with 100kb to spare. If some blocks are full, so be it...
+ there are two dimensions in growth, one being the money volume the other being tx count. Money volume will continue to increase and scale even with a steady tx count as very low value txs give their place to higher value txs in a "crowded" scenario.
Meh, whatever. Its probably just academic now: Bitfury on board for ClassicEven brg444 has tweeted his disapproval. Or disappointment. Or butthurt.  |
|
|
|
+ there are two dimensions in growth, one being the money volume the other being tx count. Money volume will continue to increase and scale even with a steady tx count as very low value txs give their place to higher value txs in a "crowded" scenario.
 While it is true that the tracks don't suffer from as much wear when it's upside down, there are other issues with this way of thinking. |
|
|
|
We are clearly facing a crises like we have never faced before in the bitcoin echo-system.
I don't know if it was a typo, but it definitely ... resonates ... with me(giggle, giggle). This is an important step. Who's next? [Edit: This is who: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=178336.msg13564698#msg13564698 Phew, that was fast!] Disclaimer: Sam Cole is, quite paradoxically, a PoS. |
|
|
|
How is increasing to 2mb as bad as increasing supply past 21m?
It is called a instigating a "precedent": if you can manage it for one protocol parameter, you can do it for everything else. I honestly didn't think you could get any dumber. I'm too generous. |
|
|
|
the chinese panics were fun, but u guys really have taken this racism thing to new levels that i can't condone. .. i just cannot hate people just cuz they mine bitcoins. #sorrycharlie
Just to be clear, my tongue was firmly in cheek. What the concentration of mining in China illustrates is the failures of a command economy. China provides electricity at a reduced cost (by drawing value from other parts of their economy) and the Chinese miners are taking advantage by sucking the value into their own coffers. It's all quite rational The interesting thing is what happens next. What happens next is that they are invited to give technical advice on how to best maintain China's (un)competitive advantage. This is one thing I really am struggling to understand. If the biggest problem to Bitcoins decentralization is that over 51% of miners are potentially under the influence of the chinese government, why didn't core just implement BIP101 a year ago? Everyone would just silently approve and chinese miners would perhaps be more inclined to join foreign pools instead of running their own pools inside China's crippled communet. |
|
|
|
Hearn's immaturity and disloyalty isn't even worth our contempt. His contributions and reckless actions will be forgotten and we will move forward with this grand project. There is no stopping this; our efforts are being realized.
Come on, you know bitcoiners are, more often than not, major dicks. It would be crazy if nobody ever got fed up with it. |
|
|
|
wut  ? we gotta do wut "blockchain blacklists" ? ok everyone all chant at same time: "china must go" "we want blockchain blacklists"! .... follow up with a give me a "WOOT WOOT" . Clearly their influence is making Bitcoin too inscrutable. Possibly even more dangerous than centralization. yes.. the evil chinese miners and their evil Huobi must GO! there is no choice, the evil chinese has forced us to implement "blockchain blacklists" . we're putting chinese miners on no-fly lists too. By the sound of it increasing blocks will invoke the great fire wall of China and btc will become more decentralised almost overnight. It's like asking turkeys to vote for Christmas Hmmm... not that I agree with the "everything China is evil" vibe in this thread, but it would be interesting to fill the blocks with anti-chinese-government propaganda and see what happens. |
|
|
|
Next up, I think full blocks vs time and probably fees vs time.
Have you seen someone break down the fee/non-fee transaction distribution lately? I would think people are already starting to add extra fees. I know I am. |
|
|
|
|
Well, at least volume is up.
|
|
|
|
What are the odds of R3 giving Hearn a financial incentive for the announcement in addition to this happening at the same time as Cryptsy closes its doors? I'll let you think about that one.
I agree, I always think people who disagree with me must be a minion of the devil. How else would they come to that conclusion? Edit: Ok, not the best point. A lot of the people who disagree with me ARE minions of The Accuser. |
|
|
|
Do you guys see a possibility (even a small one) that core developers got corrupted by the banking lobby or some other party that wants Bitcoin to fail? I'm thinking millions of dollars or tens of millions. Maybe some of them were bought to stick around but hinder progress and slow development. Others were paid to do just what he did right now.
I know what open source means, I'm a developer / IT guy myself. Others can take over. But the current core devs voices are heard and they can slow things down while "acting normal".
I see the possibility that some programmers don't understand economics or business as well as they probably should when they are managing a crypto currency. There isn't really any need for conspiracy theories on either side. The Blockstream deal has some problematic conflict of interest issues, but I can very well believe that Gmaxwell, Adam and Pieter thinks their current course is genuinely the best for Bitcoin, and I have no doubt that Mike Hearn, Gavin and Jeff are worried about restricting the block size. LN, segwit, IBLT and other clever stuff is all nice and dandy, but they are not ready. And most of these improvements will take time to have an effect even when they're released. So, in the meantime Bitcoin can't grow. That's bad for businesses relying on it, and bad for the price and anyone holding this asset. |
|
|
|
Maybe his account was bought
This is a suitable explanation. Have you ever bothered to click the link in his signature? That's not an endorsement signature. He is: Vegas Luna. Though, in this place he is close to sane. (not really though, but he has guns) |
|
|
|
LOL. Comical Ali from the Front National still believes that their alliance with North Korea will win the battle.
NK is Marxist; FN opposes Marxists. Most people realize Internationalists and Nationalists do not usually form alliances. Wrong. Most people dont give a shit what your 'brand' of crazy is. Just that you are crazy. 1st contender to the 2016 Post Of The Year Award. |
|
|
|
That said, there's quite some difference in complexity between Segwit and "change the maxblocksize int", right?
Many people seem to allude that 2MB capacity increase would require simply changing maxBlockSize variable when this simply isn't true as other lines of code would need to be changed to prevent new attack vectors(I.E.. CVE-2013-2292. ). Some proposed code to mitigate these new attacks- https://github.com/bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt/commit/cc1a7b53629b265e1be6e212d64524f709d27022This being said... yes, segwit is more complicated ... but it is all worth it as the capacity increases within it are the least intresting aspects of what it provides us. Right now we don't know if Bitcoin Classic will implement Segwit or not, but if they do not and you truley understand the benefits of segwit than this should be an immediate dis qualifier. Whatever implementation increases the block size will not suddenly become the undisputed King of Bitcoin. I wouldn't be surprised if people go back to a future 2MB+ Core client when the block size cafuffle is over. |
|
|
|
Why blocks are full today which is not normal !
Is there some kind of small transaction attack and someone wants to prove that block size is small now !!
It doesn't look like there is any attack. Miners have been filling up blocks more than usual and transactions keep coming in. Mempool doesn't look swamped, nor is it empty. https://tradeblock.com/bitcoin |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
