Describe the scenario that would allow any of the other current "brands" of bitcoin to take over dominance without destroying global faith in the market.
Blocks become persistently full. LN not ready for mass adoption. Bitcoin in its BTC form sheds economic support for use case after use case, until the point where the only use case supported is banks making international SWIFT-like settlements. In the face of this, it becomes evident to the world at large that satoshi was right and Blockstream was wrong. In case you have forgotten, The SegWit Omnibus Changeset was also a change to to protocol. You don't get to claim that this was not a change. |
|
|
|
You're the guy who used to refer to bitcoin as "segwit coin" remember?
What of it? I stand by the statement. Do you find the disambiguation as 'SegWit Coin' perjorative? Are you embarrassed by SegWit? I maintain that the term 'SegWit Coin' is a useful disambiguation which makes it quite clear that one is referring to the BTC fork of Bitcoin. Though, admittedly, some (quite a few, actually) silly insecure ninnies got their panties in a bunch over my use of the term. To appease such snowflakes, I have more recently been using the term 'Bitcoin Core', which still provides the same disambiguation, while reducing the incidence of [~triggering intensifies~]. Obviously I'm not embarrassed about SegWit because I don't feel the need to deride bitcoin by calling it 'segwit coin'. If you're 'just fine with SegWit', then why does my referring to BTC as 'SegWit Coin' make you so upset? As I clearly stated, I was not doing it to deride, but rather to disambiguate. But I guess you missed that in your rush to outrage. |
|
|
|
What would you have me do? For the eleventy-bajillion-and-oneth time, a large number of so-called 'nodes' provide no value to the network as a whole. Of course, I'll probably continue to run a full-validating, non-mining wallet client or three for myself, as I like to be able to create txs that need no intermediaries.
For the twelth bajillionth time, a large number of nodes help speedier propagation of transaction information through the network. They ensure robust communication of blockchain information --- why can't you get this?? . Miners are almost universally-connected. The only study that I am aware of that ever looked into the matter showed that something like 98% of all hash power is connected at a distance of 1.2 hops (actual numbers may be misquoted by an insignificant amount - I'm working from memory here). This is the 'the network' to which you refer. The so-called 'full nodes' are but barnacles hanging off Bitcoin's network. I can get my tx to one of these universally-connected miners on the first hop. If you are unable to do so, that's on you. All that your so-called (improperly, I might add) 'nodes' can add to this is to follow along gossipping to each other long after essentially all the miners have your tx. What will you do when groups spam your small blocks, leading to the txs you desire unable to get included in the chain in under weeks, and even then at a cost of $thousands?
Its already happening periodically, for over a year it would seem; starting around November 2017. https://cointelegraph.com/news/analyst-suspicious-bitcoin-mempool-activity-transaction-fees-spike-to-16I've personally watched people sending bitcoin to themselves with incredibly high fees during intermittent bursts for seemingly no reason other than to increase the average transaction fee. Absolutely. A latent attack vector that exists as long as there is a centrally-planned production quota upon block space. An attack vector that can be exploited by competing cryptocurrencies or by nation-states with equal effect. |
|
|
|
Do you really want to make me repeat myself?: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=178336.msg50506540#msg50506540In what way is discussing the limitations inherent in the condition of persistently full blocks relevant to Bitcoin Cash? It ain't. Neither BCH nor SV have any concern about the negative effects of persistently full blocks.
Nay, it is BTC that need to contend with such a condition. These are BTC posts.
edit: patched quoting |
|
|
|
... jbreher ... come back to team bitcoin.
'Come back'? I've been here the whole time. My bullshit detector is going off the charts. You're the guy who used to refer to bitcoin as "segwit coin" remember? I do. What of it? I stand by the statement. Do you find the disambiguation as 'SegWit Coin' perjorative? Are you embarrassed by SegWit? I maintain that the term 'SegWit Coin' is a useful disambiguation which makes it quite clear that one is referring to the BTC fork of Bitcoin. Though, admittedly, some (quite a few, actually) silly insecure ninnies got their panties in a bunch over my use of the term. To appease such snowflakes, I have more recently been using the term 'Bitcoin Core', which still provides the same disambiguation, while reducing the incidence of [~triggering intensifies~]. Happy? Incidentally, none of my BTC has ever touched a SegWit address. So I'm happy, too. You've been proven to be incorrect in your assertions time and time again,
If you say so. |
|
|
|
... jbreher ... come back to team bitcoin.
'Come back'? I've been here the whole time. It may share a name but that thing, that is not Bitcoin. BTC is not Bitcoin? Interesting assertion! We have already established that I hold BTC as well as my preferred SV and BCH. Hey jbreher, I guess you’ll never have to worry about BCH or SV blocks being full seeing as though hardly anybody uses them. Was that supposed to sting? I fart in your general direction, you silly english kaniggit!I also will not need to worry about BCH or SV blocks becoming full because their communities are committed to keep any protocol-imposed limit ahead of any need. Whether that be 1 tx per block, dozens, hundreds, thousands, dozens of thousands, ... |
|
|
|
Would there be a practical problem with making every block however big (or small) is needed to fill all current transfers?
Yes. As pointed out above, at some block size, the cost adjusted risk of block orphaning becomes equal to the amount of incremental revenue rendered by the tx fee associated with the next tx to be included. But this 'problem' is in itself the regulation inherent in the system that limits realized block size. No more txs than that will be included by the miner, because at that point, their incremental revenue is larger than their incremental cost. This is the system satoshi initially bequeathed us. Inherently self-regulating. |
|
|
|
WTF are you babbling about? I advocate larger blocks, as I do believe in it as a solution to deal with transaction congestion. Quite a splendid one, in fact.
You actually remind me of r0ach, when you can not defend your position or answer anything, you just go on a tangent and throw out statements which make no sense.. You still haven't mentioned what size blocks you think Bitcoin needs... reminds me of the little do'er carpet commercial, "tell them the price son!, the price!" "Tell me the blocksize son! the blocksize!" The _protocol_ needs no maximum on the block size. The miners, being the ones who are affected by the block size, can set it without your soviet. At whatever point makes sense from a market demand and supply perspective. Let me get this correct, you did advocate for larger blocks, but now you don't. You changed your mind. You are incorrect. My advocacy has always been for no protocol-determined block limit. For such is exactly equivalent to a centrally-planned production quota. And production quotas -- to the extent that they are enforceable -- are invariably economically inefficient, ensuring crappy outcomes for most participants. In case you had not noticed, miners have always been happy to mine blocks large enough such that average wait tx latencies were darned near universally next-block or so. That is, until blocks became persistently full, making such performance impossible. At 1MB in size, blocks are so trivially small that miners' only consideration was in maximizing tx fees in the blocks they are building. Leading to blocks not being persistently full until the number of txs desired by the community became in excess of the block size limit. Obviously, such an issue can be solved by increasing the block size limit. Of course, at some size (specific size thereof unknowable to the central planners), block size will be problematic. But the market will solve this issue. At the point where block propagation increases due to size leads to a higher incidence of orphaning, that is where the equilibrium point for block size will be set. Again, assuming no centrally-planned max, and that sufficient txs are available to build such large blocks. What you really want is a "dynamic block size", that Miner's will set themselves, be it Small (80kB) or Large (8GB), doesn't matter.
Absolutely. Now you seem to have caught up. and what would you do when groups spam the blocks to make them large and reduce the number of nodes? What would you have me do? For the eleventy-bajillion-and-oneth time, a large number of so-called 'nodes' provide no value to the network as a whole. Of course, I'll probably continue to run a full-validating, non-mining wallet client or three for myself, as I like to be able to create txs that need no intermediaries. What will you do when groups spam your small blocks, leading to the txs you desire unable to get included in the chain in under weeks, and even then at a cost of $thousands? |
|
|
|
From the article: Accordingly, Electrum’s website says that the software versions older than 3.3 can no longer connect to public servers and must be upgraded, which is a measure to prevent user exposure to phishing messages. Seems counterproductive. Whddayabet that this is implemented by the server rebuffing connection requests from early versions? Makes it all the more likely that the client will connect to a fake (nefarious) server. |
|
|
|
Roger does it through pretending Bcash is Bitcoin, Jihan floated the price with the force use of it for hardware, Craig lies about being Satoshi and having those follow his "vision". It's all bullshit of these scumbags trying to force a profit and have some sort of power and fame.
You know what amuses me no end? People in the Bitcoin Cash space talk about the technical and economic attributes of Bitcoin Cash (and that of Bitcoin Core), while people in the Bitcoin Core space almost invariably speak about Bitcoin Cash in terms of Craig, Roger, and Jihan. No people in the Bcash space parrot the same points over and over and claim the devs of core are some evil group sabotaging Satoshi's vision. Sometimes the old dictum is apropos (sometimes): 'Never attribute that to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity'. Of course, if one _was_ evil, and wanted to bring down a new form of people's currency, one way to do so would be to limit its usability to an ever-shrinking number of use cases. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin is whatever the largest amount of network power says it is.
At least this position is supportable by reasoning - from one of several possible logical sets of axioms. Your side lost, yogi.
'Lost' implies finality. Yet this game is open-ended. |
|
|
|
... jbreher ... come back to team bitcoin.
'Come back'? I've been here the whole time. It may share a name but that thing, that is not Bitcoin. BTC is not Bitcoin? Interesting assertion! We have already established that I hold BTC as well as my preferred SV and BCH. |
|
|
|
I dunno. Seem's Elwar's endeavor's USP is freedom from outside governmental interference. The ocean-faring aspect seems to me to be only a means to this end. I don't much expect anything coming from an NGO think-tank to operate in an independent manner. Not to mention the article's stated 'within 1 mi of shore' aspect, which if I am not mistaken is safely within agreed national boundaries. |
|
|
|
WTF are you babbling about? I advocate larger blocks, as I do believe in it as a solution to deal with transaction congestion. Quite a splendid one, in fact.
You actually remind me of r0ach, when you can not defend your position or answer anything, you just go on a tangent and throw out statements which make no sense.. You still haven't mentioned what size blocks you think Bitcoin needs... reminds me of the little do'er carpet commercial, "tell them the price son!, the price!" "Tell me the blocksize son! the blocksize!" The _protocol_ needs no maximum on the block size. The miners, being the ones who are affected by the block size, can set it without your soviet. At whatever point makes sense from a market demand and supply perspective. Let me get this correct, you did advocate for larger blocks, but now you don't. You changed your mind. You are incorrect. My advocacy has always been for no protocol-determined block limit. For such is exactly equivalent to a centrally-planned production quota. And production quotas -- to the extent that they are enforceable -- are invariably economically inefficient, ensuring crappy outcomes for most participants. In case you had not noticed, miners have always been happy to mine blocks large enough such that average wait tx latencies were darned near universally next-block or so. That is, until blocks became persistently full, making such performance impossible. At 1MB in size, blocks are so trivially small that miners' only consideration was in maximizing tx fees in the blocks they are building. Leading to blocks not being persistently full until the number of txs desired by the community became in excess of the block size limit. Obviously, such an issue can be solved by increasing the block size limit. Of course, at some size (specific size thereof unknowable to the central planners), block size will be problematic. But the market will solve this issue. At the point where block propagation increases due to size leads to a higher incidence of orphaning, that is where the equilibrium point for block size will be set. Again, assuming no centrally-planned max, and that sufficient txs are available to build such large blocks. What you really want is a "dynamic block size", that Miner's will set themselves, be it Small (80kB) or Large (8GB), doesn't matter.
Absolutely. Now you seem to have caught up. |
|
|
|
Everybody discussing walls and prices ... bear shows up and shit dumps a bunch of bcash shitposts
Moi? In what way is discussing the limitations inherent in the condition of persistently full blocks relevant to Bitcoin Cash? It ain't. Neither BCH nor SV have any concern about the negative effects of persistently full blocks. Nay, it is BTC that need to contend with such a condition. These are BTC posts. ^^^'Substantive rebuttal' case in point. |
|
|
|
Blah blah blah larger block blah blah
You have bcash and bsv with larger blocks, go there you have options. What part of we don't want larger blocks is so hard to comprehend Yeah, I get it. But some here seem utterly oblivious to the consequences thereof. And you feel that you grasp full consequences of bcash and bsv and their unlimited blocks ...? For the most part, yes. I certainly feel I have a greater than average grasp of such consequences -- upon both Bitcoin Cash and Bitcoin Core -- than does the average Bitcoiner -- in any of the Bitcoin camps. For evidence of such, I need only look at the near-universally asinine replies issued as 'rebuttals' to the points I make. |
|
|
|
Blah blah blah larger block blah blah
You have bcash and bsv with larger blocks, go there you have options. What part of we don't want larger blocks is so hard to comprehend Yeah, I get it. But some here seem utterly oblivious to the consequences thereof. No need to save us bro. Go save someone else. It isn't saving us when he knows who he partners with, the scoundrels looking to manipulate and lie to force their profit. I don't partner with anyone. Well, except my spouse. Roger does it through pretending Bcash is Bitcoin, Jihan floated the price with the force use of it for hardware, Craig lies about being Satoshi and having those follow his "vision". It's all bullshit of these scumbags trying to force a profit and have some sort of power and fame.
You know what amuses me no end? People in the Bitcoin Cash space talk about the technical and economic attributes of Bitcoin Cash (and that of Bitcoin Core), while people in the Bitcoin Core space almost invariably speak about Bitcoin Cash in terms of Craig, Roger, and Jihan. |
|
|
|
Blah blah blah larger block blah blah
You have bcash and bsv with larger blocks, go there you have options. What part of we don't want larger blocks is so hard to comprehend Yeah, I get it. But some here seem utterly oblivious to the consequences thereof. No need to save us bro. Go save someone else. Save? Naah. My only intent is to counter misinformation. Those that are open to thought will save themselves. |
|
|
|
... jbreher ... come back to team bitcoin.
'Come back'? I've been here the whole time. |
|
|
|
Everybody discussing walls and prices ... bear shows up and shit dumps a bunch of bcash shitposts
Moi? In what way is discussing the limitations inherent in the condition of persistently full blocks relevant to Bitcoin Cash? It ain't. Neither BCH nor SV have any concern about the negative effects of persistently full blocks. Nay, it is BTC that need to contend with such a condition. These are BTC posts. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
