I can never say this with 100% certainty but it does seem likely that Bitcoin was a project that was in semi-development for a while and then was ramped up after the 2008 collapse, or it was a concept which was rapidly developed following the collapse in 2008 and then released in 2009. There likely wasn't a ton of time to develop a ton of new systems like Segwit and they decided to release Bitcoin with the features it had at the time, offering an alternative to the regular system.
New technologies will always be something that are created, a single man only has so much creativity and time.
segwit does fix/guarantee anything, the only thing you can expect it to do as a soft fork is create a tier network |
|
|
|
if the block does not get accepted its not "losing 12.5" .. its just not winning /gaining 12.5..
If the block is orphaned after wasting hash power to find it, then should not we call it losing? nope. if it doesnt get accepted and doesnt stay in the chain. then the pool never had it there are 20 pools and only one block gets it in an average of 10 minutes put it this way EG thats why if a pool put in a reward of lets say 1000000btc.. it would get rejected.. does not mean it had it and lost it.. it just means it never had 1000000btc yes it wasted hash trying.. but doesnt mean it lost 12.5btc or 1000000btc.. it just means it didnt win.. when you play the lottery.. you dont lose millions.. you just dont win, someone else does |
|
|
|
People think that if bitcoin has larger blocks, btc will be able to achieve thousands of transactions per second like credit cards.
your reading the reddit "gigabytes by midnight" old scripts.. dynamic concepts are not about visa by midnight. .. but instead natural growth over time |
|
|
|
You must be smoking too much of that killer pot leaf. If miners allow limitless space, then there will be no fee market. The fees in each block will be small. What incentive would miners have to mine blocks with no reward and low fees? Total hash power would drop preciptuously and network security would vanish.
no reward = 120 years time also pools wont jump to "gigabytes by midnight" they will find a natural growth level that nodes accept and allows transactions in |
|
|
|
bu has been running for years
segwit 6 months
False. BU (EC) has been running for 0 hours on any live network. BU as the implementation of the current consensus is primarily Bitcoin Core with some faulty patches on top. That has been running for a while now (and crashing). LOL you need to go check the crashes were due to a core bug. also many nodes have limits of 1mb-8mb active right now. much like core had the 1mb limit even when there was a 500kb issue that would have held things back at 500kb 2009-2013 EG are you saying that the cores 1mb limit was not active in 2009-2015 when blocks were only going upto 0.75mb BU uses native keys (cells)
segwit wants to change the keys (mutated cells)
This makes no sense. If we were to go this deeply into analysis, we'd have to define each piece of the human body. You didn't understand my statement. It's the effect of cancer what I was referring to. cancer=mutated cells, foreign cells that are rejected from the native body which need to be cut away from the main body to not cause harm.. sounds like segwit to me |
|
|
|
you should check out blockstreams LN code at code level bitcoin protocol measure people holdings in satoshi's. where there are 2.1 quadrillion units of measure. LN wants 1000x more units of measure (millisats) cap was 2,100,000,000,000,000 LN want 2,100,000,000,000,000,000 have a nice day |
|
|
|
The conclusion of this thread, which you fail to admit considering you're a paid, is that BTU is to the Bitcoin network what cancer is to the human body.
bu has been running for years segwit 6 months BU uses native keys (cells) segwit wants to change the keys (mutated cells) segwit changes the design of blocks and needs to cut off the cancer just so it wont be rejected by the native "body" core have the body killing code |
|
|
|
then you will see that SWHF has been proposed as a single dynamic block (1 merkle) with features like segwit and dynamics and lowtxsigop count and other things ontop. all in one go. not the tier network your reddit rhetoric want
Where exactly can one find this SWHF proposal?  well you wont find it then the core censor cabin.. time for you to look beyond core and do some research. prove you can do research without being spoonfed. ill give you time and then maybe ill help you. but i hope you can actually do the search yourself without insults and without replying with empty comments. start researching. show your research abilities and not your insult replying ability. if you can find it without being spoonfed then you will gain some rep. P.S it does exist, its not a trick |
|
|
|
The only way that the fees will be "high as hell" is if people are using Bitcoin very heavily and highly valuing the transactions they make.
lol you removed the priority fee you removed the reactive pricing and replaced it with average pricing you included the larger relay min fee you are the one pressuring the fee's to rise even if demand was low dont start blaming users. but then again you bypassed node consensus. by only giving pools the vote and then went on a rant blaming pools do you even listen to the community. or just echo chamber your own thoughts |
|
|
|
34% of miners support Segwit
That is 34% of hashpower, it may well be 99% of miners. That is also signaling rather than support-- there are miners that support segwit who are not signaling it due to pressure or payments from others. Gmax. remember all them fully paid for all inclusive weekends you offered pools, al them social and roundtable events.. closed door meetings etc |
|
|
|
A small amount of miners (how many really? Jihan Wu? and a couple other pools, no more than 5 guys) are blocking hundreds of people involved in BTC services, exchanges and so on.
by a tiny amount of miners
lol wait last month you were saying that they owned the majority.. now your saying a small amount. tiny amount come on get your story straight Segwit is officially held hostage by a tiny amount of miners with a hashrate monopoly, probably state-sponsored. Meanwhile, LTC will eat BTC's lunch as segwit activates.
segwit is not held hostage. consensus is about only moving forward with majority approval.. if there is not majority approval. then take no as an answer and then start listening to the community to try something that will get approval trying to bypass consensus and then play the victim card, and then have tantrums is silly and childish lastly if segwit is sooo "backward compatible" then they can activate at any level and uptopian promises of segwit will still occur.. (if you beleive in the backward compatibility promise) |
|
|
|
I rarely read Reddit.
So you're cool if Rog was to hijack bitcoin.com to push BTU?
That's symbolic of the actions of a decent human being to you?
by you using terms lik BTU shows you have already swallowed the reddit narrative. because your using their buzzwords. so you have already failed the pretence that you havnt been suckered into the reddit rhetoric. secondly bitcoin is a diverse network of many independent implementations. you should be more worried about the TIER network that core desire the other non-core implementations know what a peer network is and what a tier network is not. and so if all the dynamic implementations activated there wont be a BTU.. because they only activate with real consensus. if you think its a roger vs the world or a china +roger vs .. then please actually stop reading the reddit scripts and do some proper research |
|
|
|
Why Roger Ver won't actually push for the hard fork:
bu and other diverse implementations that want blocks over 1mb want consensus of a diverse single peer network stop reading reddit its only core that want anything not core to f**k off. so core can dictate bitcoin. core have the ban node code the pow killing bips and the threats and drama. |
|
|
|
We all know BTU will result in an altcoin that vanishes overtime just like ETC did. It will be a way to make some free money while it lasts. Just look at the futures on bitfinex or whatever exchange did the BTC-C BTC-U tokens, BTC-U has been dumped already. Market will not trust amateurs with their money, and most big players have already rejected BU. Nobody is talking about anymore except the usual suspects.
Actually i am starting to think this whole block size debate is being made up artificially by Ver&WU to suppress the bitcoin prices and get cheap bitcoins from us. Because a hard fork doesn't make sense in the first place, as you said, it will end up like another scam coin. If their product was so good, and if they lost hope on bitcoin; nobody's stopping them to dump their coins away and start their own. They can't dump their coins because they love bitcoin so much <3  They know nobody will give a fuck about their scam coin so they are spreading FUD to get cheap coins. There isn't any other explanation to these recent stuff going on. you got it the whole wrong way round anything thats not core want consensus diverserse peer network of everyone on the same level playing field.. not an altcoin core want a TIER network of control and then everything blindly following their dictation look at core begging for them to make an altcoin to go get REKT, to BUgger off, to fork off.. its core code that is pushing up fee's and causing the drama. its core code with all the ban node rules and the PoW killing code. atleast stop reading reddit and you will start to see passed the scripted narative. |
|
|
|
Others are at their will to follow or not. I wonder, which pool will take the risk of losing 12.5 BTC by raising the block size?
unlike core that bypass node consensus. bu and other dynamic and >1mb blocks wont make blocks over 1mb unless they have both node and pool consensus. dont start thinking they are gonna make a 4 or 8mb block instantly .. thats more reddit fud drama creating false narative they will start slow like 1.000250 and test the water for issues (like the 500kb level db issue core had in 2013) , orphan risk and timing to propagate.. and slowly increase increments when demed safe and it actually forms blockheight logically and naturally. which if the block does not get accepted its not "losing 12.5" .. its just not winning /gaining 12.5.. you only gain 12.5btc after 100 confirms. so you cant really risk losing 12.5 unless you had it in the first place |
|
|
|
We all know BTU will result in an altcoin that vanishes overtime just like ETC did. It will be a way to make some free money while it lasts. Just look at the futures on bitfinex or whatever exchange did the BTC-C BTC-U tokens, BTC-U has been dumped already. Market will not trust amateurs with their money, and most big players have already rejected BU. Nobody is talking about anymore except the usual suspects.
the ethereum event was an intentional split.. those wanting a peer network which is what bu wants too. dont want an intentional split. however if BU gets the threshold to activate consensually, .. core will not join the peer network of consensus majority.. and core will be the one with the banning of communications on their minority by initiating their own split to form their own altcoin its already been begged and pleaded by the core group that other implementations should split away. and they all refused.. its core that are the ones that want the split.. What you are describing is what I and others call a bilaterial hardfork-- where both sides reject the other. I tried to convince the authors of BIP101 to make their proposal bilateral by requiring the sign bit be set in the version in their blocks (existing nodes require it to be unset). Sadly, the proposals authors were aggressively against this. The ethereum hardfork was bilateral, probably the only thing they did right-- but they want it to happen before consensus is reached so that they are not left with a small minority. this is why core have made so many threats and why implementations that are not core have just plodded along letting the community decide |
|
|
|
In other words, SWHF does not imply a 4 MB block size limit (as opposed to the SWSF 1 MB base && 4 MB weight). It retains the same 1-to-4 ratio that the soft fork variant has.
and thats a failure of using an opportunity to do a proper peer network upgrade.. maybe if you read code and documentation and the terms like hardfork consensus.. you would see that a peer network of a 1 merkle block where everyone is on the same level is possible due to everyone needing to upgrade Another straw man argument. This is how you deflect the actual argument instead of admitting that you were lying about the differentiation between SWSF and SWHF. Classic shilling. you need to look passed the reddit stories there are more than 2 implementations.. look at bitcoin as a whole. not the reddit stories of narrow minded rhetoric. then you will see that SWHF has been proposed as a single dynamic block (1 merkle) with features like segwit and dynamics and lowtxsigop count and other things ontop. all in one go. not the tier network your reddit rhetoric want |
|
|
|
I don't like bitcoin unlimited, it will decrease the price and make it become less valuable, and by making bitcoin to hardfork it will risk all of the investor to go away, this can lead to bitcoin domination to end and cause a lot of investor to lost their money, bitcoin should never being hardfork to maintain the investor trust level
hard fork does not mean automatically making an altcoin even going soft can result in an altcoin learn high consensus(unity with no split , just minority nodes that cant sync(orphan drama)) learn controversial consensus(orphan drama with eventual with no split , just higher minority nodes that cant sync( higher orphan drama)) bilateral split. (intentionally having nodes not communicate to avoid consensus/orphaning mechanism (altcoin maker)) ^ those scenarios can happen soft or hard stop reading the reddit scripts al you have seemed to have read is the narative of soft best case and hard worse case but not researched the whole picture or run all scenarios |
|
|
|
(*) ... but you give me an idea: if anyone wants actually to PAY me for me continuing to post, please send some funds to LRcK7eiVzyTEG8s4scRKMvxdAm4kCpfUVu (a LTC address, as BTC will soon be too expensive I guess  ). ages ago i was going to jokingly put up a post where people pay me to shutup about my open opinions that i have. (secretly donating funds to seans outpost cos i dont need handouts) |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
