I am likling these numbers  Sure glad I jumped on the "BU" band-wagon about 20 blocks ago. You're welcome for the luck!  |
|
|
|
Faster block time ...
That would be nice. I like to 2.5 min confirmation times on LTC. |
|
|
|
I just can't feel bad for people who paid .1 btc per Darkcoin or DASH or whatever it is called this week to appeal to suckers.
So, they are the same thing? My draw to DASH (limited investment currently) is the governance policies: 40/40/10 reward and 'masternode' voting. I seems interesting, but I'm still 80% BTC, 15% LTC, 3% ETC and 2% DSH. I am going to look into running a full node because it's cheaper than the miners and has the same reward. I think others will see this too and may lead to security weaknesses: entries, but not the hashpower of security. Right now it's a gamble and we're trying to bet on what is going to win with some of these. I use BTC as currency and the others as stores (except LTC, which is undervalued). |
|
|
|
|
I'm sending them out to Sidehack who does some small-scale hosting with a good price. I'll let ya'll know how that goes ...
|
|
|
|
Literally all ASIC are sold out right now. Pinidea, Baikal, L3 , ...
I happen to be looking. I've come across a couple a "smells like scams". |
|
|
|
We need segwit to do extension blocks. They've been a part of segwit for a long time.
There is a ton of crazy business interest schemes with SegWit. Why not do what has always been done? Either make blocks 1.2MB or be big time like LTC and go to 2MB. It's a simple thing that has got twisted ... After much consideration, I have finally decided to point my miners to a BU pool. |
|
|
|
... cannot be trusted to take over and their code has not been thoroughly tested.
Due to the inherent interest of attacking "the network",i.e., stealing coins, I'd think this is true of all changes to BTC, LTC, etc. This really comes down to: (a) do you use BTC as useful currency like cash or (2) do you put it in cold storage? At least, that's who the infiltrators * have led us to believe. *What is the biggest threat to bitcoin? |
|
|
|
... Litecoin's segwit activation .... Now that is a cool topic. I agree. It's value has doubled and I think SegWit is perfect for Litecoin because it: - has a much smaller market cap
- has 2 MB block size
- has a fairly deep ASIC supply
- has 2.5 minute block times
- has a 6 year history
- is a direct fork from an early Bitcoin blocksize increase
- is rummored that Coinbase will accept it
I'm feeling the #LTC50. |
|
|
|
I don't like it. We should do SegWit first and then first see how the network handles bigger blocks and only then decide based on the new data how we are going to plan ahead with a possible future HF. This is the only logical and sensible thing to do, we can't compromise security for political reasons.
You do realize BTC started at 1kb block size and has worked up to 1MB, suddenly a business group of developers with a clever name "Bitcoin Core", are trying to change the fundamentals of Bitcoin. SegWit is a layer 2 bootstrap on how it behaves *on top* of existing BTC. This bootstrapping can change payment methods in both positive and, potentially, nefarious ways. It makes transactions less secure by removing them from the blockchain. |
|
|
|
anyhow it looks like ltc will segwit, which will be interesting
I've been putting all of my BTC miner earnings into LTC ... |
|
|
|
|
There are transaction delays and unpredictable fees. The price of BTC is going up and so are transactions. I do not see how slapping on a layerII code will address these problems. The only thing it will do is increase delays and push funds elsewhere, such as LTC, which has 2MB block sizes and they are voting on #SegWit. I think it makes more sense there and larger blocks for bitcoin.
Why would we fundamentally fork - I mean fundamentally, not vía code - Bitcoin when larger block sizes will continue to work as they have in the past?
|
|
|
|
|
I just pointed 27.5 TH/s to a BU pool today, after much consideration, because the unpredictable transaction times and fees make it difficult to purchase goods and I believe may hurt the price of Bitcoin. I support BU because I use BTC and I do not see SegWit solving today's problems. I would like to buy a Litecoin miner and point it to a SegWit pool because I believe SegWit is better suited, right now, for the Litecoin network.
|
|
|
|
The discussions about changing the PoW to stop a majority rule is beyond stupid.
SegWit? Be nice to hit this "almost-an-hour-long" block!  Truth. It should be chunky ... |
|
|
|
I've personally sent out 3 transactions with fees around 3c and each has been confirmed in what I considered a reasonable amount of time considering the low fee: 33mins for the 1st one and 3.5hrs for 2nd and 3rd I am totally with you. It has been great! I was so used to it that I sent an important transaction with a "high" fee. It stinks because, as you know, sometimes manufacturers are about timing. The low fees are great. I think I sent at a bad time because there were 2,000-ish unconfirmed ... then, 13,000 shortly thereafter. So what I'm saying is yep something needs to be done soon, but nope neither of the options seem like a good long term solution at the moment. I agree. I don't think it's perfect. Meanwhile, on the subject of voting, our top miners are clearly bringing in more hash rate and more soon, we'll see when it happens  When we get to a few % of the network I'll then be discussing with them (and anyone else who points multiple PHs of hardware at the pool long term) about that voting. Cool to know. I'm sure people will be happy to hear about planning. I only threw less than 30 TH, so you won't be missing much. I just hope I don't find my first block, now.  I hope I'm still welcome in this forum. I feel terrible. I simply followed a mantra of 1 hash = 1 vote. On some of your comments in the past about being a small pool ... my impression is that the pool and this thread have a larger weight than measured by hashrate. I think discussions echo out. Signaling would be more significant than you expect, imo, and it's an important decision to make. Let's just keep finding blocks and growing bitcoin! :cheers: |
|
|
|
|
As an FYI ... I pointed my miners to a PPLNS signaling BU. These transaction times and unc-tx. I've been waiting 20+ hours, again, with 0.0005+ tx/kb. I don't know the answer, but I know it's not long queues and high tx fees as the Core team wants - too many altcoins.
Anyways ... we've discussed this and I thought I'd share. It didn't sound like you had any considerations of pointing BU, beyond small pool size? I hope you take no offense to this, as that is not my intention, only to inform. Great pool and great work! Happy to point back, but wanted to vote ...
|
|
|
|
You did read the last 2 paragraphs right? Here's the first one: If only this had been written on a different day than April’s fools. In truth, bitcoin is more divided than it has ever been ... Jaja ... It'd be nice though, right? I'm not too concerned though because I think recent SegWit discussions on LiteCoin may help ease pressure on BTC for a while. I guess I just don't fully understand SegWit ... Cool. I went back, but not far enough to see that post. |
|
|
|
I'll be upgrading the SG and JP mining nodes in about 17 and 17 1/2 hours at:
SG 1-Apr 23:00 UTC
JP 1-Apr 23:30 UTC
The web site shows this now also.
The expected outage is less than 5 minutes for each node.
I've separated the update by 30mins in case anyone is mining to them both as primary and backup - they won't need to change anything.
If you only mine to one Kano node and it's one of those two nodes, make sure you also have a secondary backup Kano node.
No other mining will be affected - only SG and JP.
Reminder - this is in 40 minutes for SG and then 30 minutes after that for JP Anything to do with the "grand compromise", which sounds like BIP100? https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/bitcoin-reaches-a-grand-compromise-on-the-scalability-debate/EDIT: My sticker should be Litecoin. I am bull, bull, bull on litecoin. #LTC50 |
|
|
|
Gravity is a phenomenon which exists.
Or does it? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
