At the moment, seems all good to me.. and I see no major censorship, as seems to be implied by several posters who are asserting their opposition to recent administrator banning actions...
Sure, if you can stomach all of the ad campaigns and all of the disingenuous posts they generate. So... you think price may raise to $500 tonight? or tomorrow than?  I too am having the same question in my mind. It is a question I think we all should be concerned with henceforth. I think it will be a while before that happens. That's some solid advice. Thx! |
|
|
|
At the moment, seems all good to me.. and I see no major censorship, as seems to be implied by several posters who are asserting their opposition to recent administrator banning actions...
Sure, if you can stomach all of the ad campaigns and all of the disingenuous posts they generate. So... you think price may raise to $500 tonight? or tomorrow than? I too am having the same question in my mind. It is a question I think we all should be concerned with henceforth. |
|
|
|
Well, this forum is somewhere between absurd and ridiculous.
What did you say ... i can heard you, little boy ... ! LOL! That's funny for all the wrong reasons. |
|
|
|
...eh? Good, so where does this holy consensus fit in then?
And by "holy" I mean "unassailable".
Majority; not everyone. Would you be more comfortable if all the Core developers were quickly reaching consensus among themselves especially in regards to their own proposals? Some have already been called out because of Blockstream even though it is pretty obvious that they don't share the same views. Ok, now we're getting somewhere. So by consensus you mean majority. Regardless of what they do and where they are in the system. I see they've even got Charlie Lee to sign it. Kind of begs the question: majority of what? To be clear, I'm not even saying that there isn't consensus among key people in the community, just that there are enough key people in dissent for there to be room for differing viewpoints. And when you get to the general community level there really is no good reason to force consensus. And as you must have seen, it doesn't even work. And this insane hunt for shills in this forum is seriously unhealthy. I don't believe hdbuck, iCEBREAKER or even brg444 are shills. And even if they were, so what? Judge them on what they write(as I have done many many times, admittedly with a little colour added). If words can wreck this party then there really isn't any point in trying anyway. |
|
|
|
@tl121 I agree, that wasn't the best way of putting it. But I wasn't talking about averages. That would make little sense, as you pointed out. "[M]oved a bit"? Anyhew, this is roughly what I meant: Three out of the five Core committers, did not even sign on to the Core road map.
I'm aware of that and it isn't a bad thing IMO. I would be a bit suspicious if they were all agreeing pretty quickly on various matters. ...eh? Good, so where does this holy consensus fit in then? And by "holy" I mean "unassailable". |
|
|
|
"Centralization of mining due to slow propagation with bigger blocks" is mostly a strawman argument.
Even if the blocksize went up to 8MB with no increases in Internet speed,
you're talking about 8 seconds difference between an 8mbit connection and
a 16mbit connection. Compare to the 600 seconds required to solve a block
and you get 8/600 = .0133~. So that's a 1.3% advantage to the faster
miner. Quite dubious to say that would be a crushing competitive advantage
given that there are other factors involved in mining costs such as electricity,
gear, and operations.
Sry, I can't follow your numbers there with regards to block propagation. But mining centralization has already largely happened because of the economics of Bitcoin mining. Mining centralization already happened but small blockers are afraid that the geographic area or region with fastest internet speeds will become the only place mining will be competitive if blocks get big. But I'm not buying their argument. Big miners just need a server located somewhere with high bandwidth connection to as much of the globe as possible. This server sends work (tiny amounts of data regardless of block size) to the their mine in the outback. Or they, or anyone else, can join a pool. As far as the numbers, there's 8 bits in one byte. Therefore, a difference of 8 megabits in speed is one megabyte per second.
If block size is 8 MB, that's 8 seconds. Yet it takes 10 minutes to solve a block so 8/600.
It's not like every miner has 5891 connections. They send to as many nodes as they can and those nodes send to as many as they can and so on. It's sort of like grass fire. That is true. But to claim consensus when the lines haven't moved is a bit weird and, in my view, quite problematic. A more honest approach would be to admit/accept that consensus could not be reached but that this particular group has decided to move forward with an agreed upon set of solutions.
The lines have not moved a bit? Are you even sure about that? The roadmap for 2016 was signed by several people. "[M]oved a bit"? Anyhew, this is roughly what I meant: Three out of the five Core committers, did not even sign on to the Core road map.
|
|
|
|
...
seriously you need to look outside the blockstream box to see the big picture.
How is being against XT, BU, blocksize increase, segwit and any soft/hard/flabby ph0rks in general, blockstream related? Fuck them too if they can't innovate without crippeling Bitcoin's PROTOCOL. I'm against you fuckwit reddit wannabes, authority cravers and critically inapt herd forking the shit out of the Holy Ledger to please your VC master over at cali and their cash burning useless parasitic corporations to denature the only monetary system thats left sane in this sand castle that has became the financial world. Please proceed with your inabilities and get a RFID chip on your butt already. U R French |
|
|
|
|
@AlexGR I hope you are right. But I think it depends on what markets Bitcoin gains traction in. I also find crashing into the block size barrier far more risky than a hardfork.
|
|
|
|
ie Cryptsy say goes full Gox....
Who gives a shit about that place? No doubt there'll be alt fans who'll be sad but that's about it. I don't think we'll be seeing headlines on the news if Wankcoin dies because of it. I'm no fan of shitcoins, but I hate to see real people get taken to the cleaners by some guy whose claim to fame seems to be really fat fingers.  No offence Chubby.. My fingers are perfectly proportioned. It's a bit freaky. |
|
|
|
Look, I don't know how to code shit (in terms of BTC code), but I do know how to change a few variables / constants. That doesn't make me a developer or someone who can maintain my fork even if the market agrees that I found the right value for maxblocksize. This is actually a good point. The scaling issue hides many motives and I'm not sure how deep the rabbit hole goes. I always found it suspect that some people are so hell bent on increasing block size that even if you tell them "ok, let's say we have a tech that effectively doubles the txs that can fit in a 1MB block, like segwit or something... why would you want it to go to 2MB?" and they are like "but it has to go to 2mb". Well, I call bullshit with them. That's hypocrisy. If the 1mb is an effective 2mb, then why would you need the 2 to become 4?
Why would someone, who would say yes if you asked them about a 2mb upgrade, be dissatisfied by a technological equivalent of a 2mb upgrade in terms of tx/s? What's going on here?
Segwit will take time to be spread to enough nodes and users to actually lead to a significant capacity increase. And that capacity increase will be more like 60-70%. Not double. Plus, there seems to be little advantage to this over just increasing block size, basically you can softfork it. The GOOD thing about Core's roadmap is that their approach will fry a lot of brains in order to find scalability improvements through efficiency increases. I hope. But the fear is that whatever they come up with will be too late to avoid crippling congestion and, in its turn, the crippling of the bitcoin economy. Or, that capacity limitations will send money elsewhere. We sort of have to pray that Bitcoin stays in the periphery for a couple more years without losing its competitive advantage over other cryptos. |
|
|
|
theymos is right. If you want to comment the future of XT altcoin you should NOT do it on BTC threads. Open XT altcoin discussion and say whatever you want to say. Nobody will delete your threads. rose $hit by any other name would smell as sweet"Corrected for you. Thx for the attempted correction, but I found that neither is correct: “What’s in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet.” |
|
|
|
That's a pretty weird way of looking at it.
There are people who disagrees with the "consensus", which would lead one to believe that there isn't a consensus.
There will never be 100% consensus, especially not when bad actors are around. Get used to coming close to 100% (that's enough in the current system). That is true. But to claim consensus when the lines haven't moved is a bit weird and, in my view, quite problematic. A more honest approach would be to admit/accept that consensus could not be reached but that this particular group has decided to move forward with an agreed upon set of solutions. At the very least accept that this consensus is not morally binding/normative for others in the community and cannot be used to brand people as saboteurs and bad actors. The funny thing is, if only they didn't try to pass it off as "consensus" in this way, this is exactly the kind of decisive leadership Gavin's been shouting about for a year now. Which is good, I guess. Mostly it's just amusing that people around here like the think of themselves as crypto-anarchists, but only until someone disagrees. Then they swiftly turn into crypto-fascists and start whining about "contentious issues" that shouldn't be discussed and attempting to justify stifling debate about it and calling people "shills". You're about as anarchistic as the average teenager, but with slightly less of a spine.  Sure, but you can do hookers and blow with money you should have used for taxes and claim it's because you have integrity. Disclaimer: Posted on a shitty android phone. Typos and weird shit may occur. |
|
|
|
theymos is right. If you want to comment the future of XT altcoin you should NOT do it on BTC threads. Open XT altcoin discussion and say whatever you want to say. Nobody will delete your threads. |
|
|
|
There is indeed consensus but there are still people trying to sabotage it.
...? That's a pretty weird way of looking at it. There are people who disagrees with the "consensus", which would lead one to believe that there isn't a consensus. For key members of Core to come out and declare a consensus among the people who mostly agreed anyway, in order to silence the rest, sort of stinks, doesn't it? At least if it's used the way you used it now. |
|
|
|
"Centralization of mining due to slow propagation with bigger blocks" is mostly a strawman argument.
Even if the blocksize went up to 8MB with no increases in Internet speed,
you're talking about 8 seconds difference between an 8mbit connection and
a 16mbit connection. Compare to the 600 seconds required to solve a block
and you get 8/600 = .0133~. So that's a 1.3% advantage to the faster
miner. Quite dubious to say that would be a crushing competitive advantage
given that there are other factors involved in mining costs such as electricity,
gear, and operations.
Sry, I can't follow your numbers there with regards to block propagation. But mining centralization has already largely happened because of the economics of Bitcoin mining. If, however, someone wants to contribute with a basement space heater they can do so through the pool of their choosing with minimal network requirements to themselves. Your last point is a good one. The chinese have cornered the market in large part due to artificially low electricity costs due to chinas centrally planned economy. If they lose out because they can't keep up with bandwidth and consistently gets stuck in the last 50th percentile when it comes to block propagation, then tough luck! If they can't compete then there is no reason for Bitcoin to keep them around. But there are ways around this problem, and the chinese miners know this, none of them are opposed to larger blocks. |
|
|
|
How did I miss this thread? I could swear I was a big block shill. What more must I do?!?!
I think they got confused by your Blockstream Appreciation thread. |
|
|
|
Not only, but it's mainly the disk space...
So propagation delay is now considered a minor issue? sorry but propagation is not an issue. if you can watch netflix then you got no worries about bandwidth eg 2mb blocks = 12mb an hour 4mb blocks = 24mb an hour 8mb blocks= 48mb an hour netflix SD = 1000mb an hour(20x-80x more bandwidth requirement for netflix compared to bitcoin no matter what block size proposal goes forward ) netflix HD=3000mb an hour(60x-240x more bandwidth requirement for netflix compared to bitcoin no matter what block size proposal goes forward ) and 33million people dont seem to be complaining about bandwidth issues I would think you'll send your received blocks to more than 1 other node. |
|
|
|
Your post is a fine example of faulty generalization and nonsense. You are trying to present that price point as available to everyone which is not even close in reality. Most people of the world do not have access to those prices and a single TB tends to cost ~100$ depending on where you live. With bandwidth it is much worse with the world average being 5.0 Mbps. ... we haven't even hit the 1mb limit yet. If you imagine that I live in the future then you might see how this is relevant. Except I don't. This is not available to everyone, but it is to many. Maybe not to Luke-Jr's hut in the middle of the Appalachian Jungle, but to many. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Internet_connection_speedsSouth Korea 20.5MB Sweden 17.5MB United States 12.6MB Israel 11.2MB New Zealand 8.7MB Thailand 8.2MB United Emirates 6.8MB Uruguay 5.9MB South Africa 3.7MB But these are averages. Which means that in low to medium income countries, especially those with large landmasses, you'll find large areas pulling down the averages. I'm not sure how this exactly is relevant to the OP? You're right. Ordnung Muss Sein. Especially in a thread dedicated to branding and hunting down misfits. I guess I should be on the list as well. HA!!! How much more relevant can you get? |
|
|
|
You are right, 60GB doesn't look so big...   yep and a 2tb hard drive for 20 years of 2mb or 5 years of 8mb= $92, not really breaking the bank for 5-20 years storage needs ($4.60-$19 a year) You'll probably want to change your hard drive before it fills up anyway. They don't last forever. yeo and in 2-5 years a 4tb-6tb will be under $100.. so scalability is not an issue At least not when it comes to storage space. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=9SIA2W01HP4642$124 for 4tb. Bandwidth OTOH... But I got an offer from my isp of a 500MB/50MB line for $99 a month. Not exactly cheap, but for a drooling nerd it's a "worthwhile investment". |
|
|
|
You are right, 60GB doesn't look so big... yep and a 2tb hard drive for 20 years of 2mb or 5 years of 8mb= $92, not really breaking the bank for 5-20 years storage needs ($4.60-$19 a year) You'll probably want to change your hard drive before it fills up anyway. They don't last forever. (Besides, with all full 8mb blocks we'll have a whole new generation of very affluent bitcoiners. These things don't happen in a vacuum.) |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
